Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=MezzellMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:20:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-11-30T22:08:27Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of "slush funds." Correct terms were also used, like "Woodstein" and "Deep throat." Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting "four more years" at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-11-30T21:56:44Z<p>Mezzell: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-17T21:42:38Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-17T20:01:11Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-10T04:17:51Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-10T04:08:56Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-03T21:05:06Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-03T20:56:44Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T22:37:20Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T20:56:49Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T21:56:22Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T21:40:37Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T21:28:33Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T21:45:23Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T21:33:57Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T00:13:10Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T00:02:53Z<p>Mezzell: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T00:01:27Z<p>Mezzell: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-29T23:56:05Z<p>Mezzell: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow. Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-29T23:42:36Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-29T23:35:32Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-22T21:22:25Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-22T21:06:34Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-22T20:44:59Z<p>Mezzell: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-22T20:34:44Z<p>Mezzell: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin. - Mike E.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T03:48:55Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T03:47:14Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the force quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians until the war had officially began. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T03:38:21Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T03:52:01Z<p>Mezzell: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T01:14:42Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T01:14:05Z<p>Mezzell: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:29:56Z<p>Mezzell: /* John Smith (1608) reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-01T03:52:49Z<p>Mezzell: /* Pocahontas, Disney Movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
==Pocahontas, Disney Movie== <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-01T03:50:11Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
==Pocahontas, Disney Movie== <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:53:14Z<p>Mezzell: /* Reel History, Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn <br />
<br />
I would agree with the claims made so far in this book, but their is one thing that I do not understand. Do people really think that they are gonna get a history lesson from a movie? I certainly hope not. Movies can be used as a tool to get people interested in a historical topic. For instance, when I first saw the trailer for the movie "300" I automatically wanted to know more about the people involved and the daily lives that they lead, but I didn't wait for the movie to come out to learn that information. I went on the research and destroy path to find out all that I could about these men. Then, while watching the movie, I was still able to enjoy it even though I knew what events where real and which had been manifested by the director. The point here is that movies should held to a certain standard of portraying what really happened, especially movies about history, but it is also the job of the view to understand that movies, good movies moreover, are aimed at entertaining the audience not teaching them. If you want to learn while watching a movie, take the remote and turn the dial to the History channel for one of their famous in-depth, expert filled programs to get your fix of "true" facts and events. -Michael E.<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to interpret. I also agree with Rachael's question about the rules that are applied to filmmakers but not historians. "Slaves on Screen" pointed out that historians should have an obligation to point out whether or not something is their own speculation: "If [historians] are interpreting beyond what their evidence strictly offers, they should say so" (11). I feel as if many historians would be more than willing to point out inaccuracies in films, but would be far less willing to admit that their opinions may be similarly based on speculation. - Celia<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie. Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie. These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom. There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things. Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Michael E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the "modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research. As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected. We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E <br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Justine. Some of the most popular movies of the past decades delve into subjects that are utterly foreign to an audience. Whether it's a completely different world, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or a mind-bending concept like The Matrix or Inception, people crave original, fresh stories - and to be original these days, you most likely have to come up with something that has never been seen or done before. I think this also applies to the escapist notion of films - that you watch a movie to escape your daily issues. You want to put yourself in another world of which you know nothing - where there aren't any cell phones or annoying fire drills or textbooks. Historical films strike an escapist chord usually because they tell of a so-called "simpler" time, or at least a more slowly-paced time. We don't know what it would be like to live in these worlds, and I think that is why films that depict those worlds tend to be popular. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: "whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality" (10). In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine's discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed. -Cilla<br />
<br />
One of the things that has always intrigued me the most about movies is how different dynamics of people react to a movie. Everybody reacts differently depending on the color of their skin, their background social status, where they live and many more. The section on how people react differently to each movie was incredibly interesting and it demonstrated just how drastically people can be affected by what they are seeing on screen. A very interesting question it poses is, “Did anyone pay attention?” I think this is not simply a yes or no answer because some people had to pay more attention than others. For example, FBI director Hoover payed extra attention to movies with a certain theme whereas ordinary citizens would simply analyze say how entertaining it was to watch. In my mind, the dynamic between the movie and moviegoer is one of the most interesting things about movies. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
As is seen in "Why Movies Matter," there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. Early tabloids like "New York World" and the "New York Journal" employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas. In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today's movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by "glamorizing violence" and by "mocking authority." Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of "violence" and "scandal" to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. <br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but "how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
In response to the question, "How influential are movies?" I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, "The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these." I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
A lot of the readings deal with how modern Americans interpret history as it is presented in films, but this article mentions that films can shape how contemporaries see their own times as well. As the author points out, many in 1955 saw "Blackboard Jungle" and "Rebel Without a Cause" as proof that adults could expect nothing but juvenile delinquency from their teenagers and so went about railing against the terrible influences of the culture of the day and the downfall of society. Yet, as we all know, in reality, most young people in the 1950s behaved in ways that hardly resembled those depicted in the movies. The explosive reaction to those films makes Isaac's point a very relevant one- how much do movies shape our history as well as record it? -Mary Ann</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:38:36Z<p>Mezzell: /* Slaves on Screen */</p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie. Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie. These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom. There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things. Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Michael E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the "modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research. As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected. We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E <br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: "whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality" (10). In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine's discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed. -Cilla<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
As is seen in "Why Movies Matter," there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. Early tabloids like "New York World" and the "New York Journal" employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas. In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today's movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by "glamorizing violence" and by "mocking authority." Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of "violence" and "scandal" to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. <br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but "how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
In response to the question, "How influential are movies?" I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, "The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these." I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life. -- Justine R.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:37:44Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie. Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie. These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom. There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things. Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the "modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research. As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected. We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E <br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: "whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality" (10). In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine's discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed. -Cilla<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
As is seen in "Why Movies Matter," there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. Early tabloids like "New York World" and the "New York Journal" employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas. In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today's movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by "glamorizing violence" and by "mocking authority." Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of "violence" and "scandal" to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. <br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but "how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
In response to the question, "How influential are movies?" I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, "The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these." I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life. -- Justine R.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:18:34Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the "modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E <br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but "how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:04:06Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:01:10Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front. "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle. Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:00:38Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
"Why can't moviemakers portray the truth?" This seems like an incredibly easy and basic question but one that is so central to movies in popular culture. In a nutshell, it seems like this book is based on this question that Toplin asks. I think many people do beleive that movies, while posessing some historical facts are far from accurate. I have personally not really delved into the historically accuracy of films. I would go to a movie, think of it as relating to maybe one big historical event, but stopping my analysis there. Overall, I think Toplin will try to communicate how important it is to keep an open mind while relating movies with history and that we may be suprised with his findings. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front. "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle. Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T01:27:16Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's film here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:MezzellUser talk:Mezzell2010-08-25T01:20:23Z<p>Mezzell: </p>
<hr />
<div>Finally, I am on wiki!!!</div>Mezzellhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:MezzellUser talk:Mezzell2010-08-25T01:19:59Z<p>Mezzell: New page: Finally, I am on wiki</p>
<hr />
<div>Finally, I am on wiki</div>Mezzell 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