Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=MpadgettMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:25:31ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T02:46:54Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:51:32Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
First of all, I really liked this movie because it managed to make me incredibly angry about what was happening, even though I knew that the outcome was positive. I wish we had been able to see every hateful person in the film get what's coming to them. That being said, I respect the filmmakers immensely because they chose not to do that - it's much more realistic that way. I was so angry and frustrated with what I saw in the film, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. Anyway, I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families. In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting. They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:45:00Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families. In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T03:23:01Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen. In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before. I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives. None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments. He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down. Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl. He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war. His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war. (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.) Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability. It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones. The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce. When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan. Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral. The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home. When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I'm reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish's hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mike E's comment, it seems that Frank's PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran's being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s. I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie which did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the '50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can't remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience's questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al's future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film. I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole. Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn<br />
<br />
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I saw the "atomic bomb" scene with Al's son a little differently than Caryn. It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima. I'm sure that the bomb was on the boy's mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn't really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.<br />
<br />
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf. I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese. Similarly, the fact that the word "divorce" is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies. The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie. This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it. Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live. He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you. They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.” Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The characters' experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell's experiences. Specifically, Fussell says he "became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ..." (176). Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage. She offers to help him adjust, but he says it's something he has to do by himself. I can't quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families. Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn't tell his father what he did in the war. Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger. Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In Paul Fussell's account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie ''The Best Years of Our Lives,''the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies. He also told us that ''Best Years'' was the top-grossing movie of 1946. Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years. They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it's important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely think that the movie could serve as a message of hope to veterans and their families who were undergoing similar problems to the characters. Even though there is not such a strong pro-war message, there was a lot of fear about family life and the economy in 1946. Seeing that all three of these men were able to get their lives back on track and overcome the obstacles which they faced would have been inspiring, I think. --Meagan P.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T03:18:53Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen. In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before. I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives. None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments. He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down. Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl. He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war. His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war. (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.) Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability. It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones. The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce. When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan. Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral. The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home. When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I'm reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish's hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mike E's comment, it seems that Frank's PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran's being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s. I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie which did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the '50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can't remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience's questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al's future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film. I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole. Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn<br />
<br />
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I saw the "atomic bomb" scene with Al's son a little differently than Caryn. It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima. I'm sure that the bomb was on the boy's mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn't really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.<br />
<br />
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf. I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese. Similarly, the fact that the word "divorce" is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies. The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie. This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it. Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live. He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you. They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.” Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The characters' experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell's experiences. Specifically, Fussell says he "became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ..." (176). Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage. She offers to help him adjust, but he says it's something he has to do by himself. I can't quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families. Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn't tell his father what he did in the war. Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger. Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In Paul Fussell's account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie ''The Best Years of Our Lives,''the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies. He also told us that ''Best Years'' was the top-grossing movie of 1946. Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years. They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it's important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T22:22:43Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T22:16:38Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
<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 />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T00:04:02Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T23:57:09Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T01:05:28Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T00:59:16Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</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 />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:24:39Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves. They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:20:01Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:33:57Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:25:19Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T03:24:57Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I 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 />
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 />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T03:08:13Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson 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 />
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 />
== 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 />
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 />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T02:05:26Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T01:51:45Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got wrong */</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 />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== 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>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T04:12:18Z<p>Mpadgett: /* 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 />
To add to Celia's list of quotes, when the ship first arrives to the continent one sailor gasps in surprise stating that the land "is all ours!". In all reality the film deals fairly well with the English perspective of owning the land and taking its resources. To expand on the misconception of gold being in Virginia, you can tell just how ill-prepared the settlers are. Although the film does not explicitly show such, the men are mostly workers who have no specific skills, they aren't good shots (Thomas) and they tend to be rather lazy (everybody else). One point that the film may not do right, but at least represents well, is the effect of the English just being on the continent. While Pocahontas stands upon a large non-existent cliff, there is a distinct divide between the land "settled" by the English and those occupied by the natives. The settled land is practically barren and without a speck of green. I imagine that if you had an image of the work being done in the colonies you would see something very similar to that. Joe Calpin[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:10, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway. I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith. Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog. Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer. However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown. After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Perhaps one of the greatest discrepancies that I noticed between the film and Smith's accounts (as well as our lecture) was the lack of disease plaguing the Jamestown settlers during the film. Whereas in actuality they were camping and building rough houses in a virtual swampland and the majority of the men died of dysentery and malaria, these conditions were mysteriously absent in the film. Disney has included a lot of clever references in many other films, so I was a little disappointed at how healthy all of the colonists remained, as well as the natives (who should have been getting smallpox). -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America's past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I'm sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can't be completely without value. - Celia<br />
<br />
Although the representation is hard to come by, the film would hardly count as a legitimate primary source. However, as mentioned in class over and over again, films can act as both a primary and secondary source. In this case, we could easily look at Pocahontas and how the film fits as a primary source in regards to the 1990s views of Native Americans. To focus on Disney and its move to represent other ethnicities, Cilla's right that Disney really opened the floor by expanding the different ethnic groups discussed. Interestingly, there is a reference on the wikipedia article for the film to a native american website (please take with grain of salt), wherein they offered to provide Disney with information to make the film more culturally accurate, but Disney rejected their offer (see: [http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html here]). Perhaps it could make an interesting study in Disney's continuation of factoring out the native's opinions? Certainly, a large jump for a conclusion, but the film points to Disney's ability to take up whatever mythos they want and twist it.<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
An extension of Mary Ann's discussion of language: John Smith writes of his interactions with the Native Americans without the slightest hint of a language barrier. While I do agree that just stating that there was random and ineffective pointing does not make for a riveting journal, one must wonder exactly how these two groups managed to communicate. This question becomes particularly complicated in relation to the deep level of conversation. Case in point, explaining that the earth is round without knowing the word for earth is more than a little difficult. John Smith also manages to demand that the natives send a letter to his camp and also explain the nature of sailing, or even noting that he would be released in four days. I now that the counter will be that perhaps the king raised up four fingers, however don't be so assured that using your hands to count is in a universal fashion! Or even worse on page ten "I told him being in fight with Spaniards our enemy, being overpowered, near put to retreat, and by extreme weather put to this shore..."These are not trivial or easy subject matters. Say what you will, but language barriers and diplomacy go hand and hand.-Joe<br />
<br />
If nothing else, John Smith's account exemplifies the ambiguous state of relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. It was either tenuous peace or warfare, and Smith shows that by constantly going back and forth in the way he depicts them - one paragraph, the Native Americans are endlessly benevolent and helpful, and in the next there is a brutal fight between the natives and the colonists. It shows the colonists' lives in America as unsettling and volatile - a constantly changing state. - Celia<br />
<br />
One of the interesting things from this account is Smith’s optimism upon the departure of Captain Newport. Smith stated that Captain Newport returned to England on June 22nd “leaving provision for 13 or 14 weeks” and that all of his men were “in good health and comfort, albeit, that through some discontented humors…” We can look back on this now because we know how badly things went for the colonists. They got short on supplies, relations with the Indians shifted constantly and they could not change their English customs to adapt to the new world. To me, it was just very curious to look back at these comments, knowing now that high morale and good fortune for the English did not last long. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While they were very interesting, I think that Smith's journals should be taken with more than just a grain of salt; since they were rewritten and republished several times, which fairly significant changes, they become a less reliable source. I also think that it is important to consider that Smith was writing to his superiors, so he was most likely trying to make himself look better, while simplifying what he knew of the Native American culture, such as describing their fascination with his glass beads and trinkets. However, Smith's journals do provide us with some insight into the power dynamics, at least from the English point of view, between Natives and colonists. -Meagan P.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T04:04:30Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway. I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith. Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog. Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer. However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown. After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Perhaps one of the greatest discrepancies that I noticed between the film and Smith's accounts (as well as our lecture) was the lack of disease plaguing the Jamestown settlers during the film. Whereas in actuality they were camping and building rough houses in a virtual swampland and the majority of the men died of dysentery and malaria, these conditions were mysteriously absent in the film. Disney has included a lot of clever references in many other films, so I was a little disappointed at how healthy all of the colonists remained, as well as the natives (who should have been getting smallpox). -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America's past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I'm sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can't be completely without value. - Celia<br />
<br />
Although the representation is hard to come by, the film would hardly count as a legitimate primary source. However, as mentioned in class over and over again, films can act as both a primary and secondary source. In this case, we could easily look at Pocahontas and how the film fits as a primary source in regards to the 1990s views of Native Americans. To focus on Disney and its move to represent other ethnicities, Cilla's right that Disney really opened the floor by expanding the different ethnic groups discussed. Interestingly, there is a reference on the wikipedia article for the film to a native american website (please take with grain of salt), wherein they offered to provide Disney with information to make the film more culturally accurate, but Disney rejected their offer (see: [http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html here]). Perhaps it could make an interesting study in Disney's continuation of factoring out the native's opinions? Certainly, a large jump for a conclusion, but the film points to Disney's ability to take up whatever mythos they want and twist it.<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
An extension of Mary Ann's discussion of language: John Smith writes of his interactions with the Native Americans without the slightest hint of a language barrier. While I do agree that just stating that there was random and ineffective pointing does not make for a riveting journal, one must wonder exactly how these two groups managed to communicate. This question becomes particularly complicated in relation to the deep level of conversation. Case in point, explaining that the earth is round without knowing the word for earth is more than a little difficult. John Smith also manages to demand that the natives send a letter to his camp and also explain the nature of sailing, or even noting that he would be released in four days. I now that the counter will be that perhaps the king raised up four fingers, however don't be so assured that using your hands to count is in a universal fashion! Or even worse on page ten "I told him being in fight with Spaniards our enemy, being overpowered, near put to retreat, and by extreme weather put to this shore..."These are not trivial or easy subject matters. Say what you will, but language barriers and diplomacy go hand and hand.-Joe<br />
<br />
If nothing else, John Smith's account exemplifies the ambiguous state of relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. It was either tenuous peace or warfare, and Smith shows that by constantly going back and forth in the way he depicts them - one paragraph, the Native Americans are endlessly benevolent and helpful, and in the next there is a brutal fight between the natives and the colonists. It shows the colonists' lives in America as unsettling and volatile - a constantly changing state. - Celia</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T22:37:38Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Reel History, Introduction */</p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
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 />
==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 />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T22:05:31Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Introduction: Why Movies Matter */</p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
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 />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.</div>Mpadgetthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T21:15:26Z<p>Mpadgett: /* Hollywood's America */</p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.</div>Mpadgett 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