Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$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=VyaleMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:20:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_14_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 14 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-19T08:17:01Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>The McConnell article was interesting - even if his whole geography metaphor was kind of a stretch. The most interesting idea in terms of this class is the function of historical memory as a subject and also its evolution out of the democratized history of the 1960s. Do you agree that the study of historical memory serves in part to assign sort of a "watchdog" role to the trained historian over the proliferation of individual perceptions and stories? Do you see it as a clear evolution of the "bottom-up" history from the 1960s? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
<br />
What is the importance and influence of monuments and other physical objects in the League of the South and the Southern Party? -avanness <br />
<br />
Women were barred from the "ranks of academic historians" yet they could write sentimental fiction that many men were incapable or unable to write. What impact do you think sentimental fiction about the Civil War that was written by women had on people and the process of remembering the war? -avanness<br />
<br />
Is there a suggestion for a commemoration that Gilmore could have made that would have made everyone happy? What function does making anything like a "Confederate History Month" or a "Proclamation Honoring all Virginians..." serve? Does it serve any real function other than answering the requests of a certain group? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
What does McConnell mean by saying that Memory has geography? How was the geography of memory pertaining to the Civil War developed over the last 150 years? -Nick J<br />
<br />
I thought the Shackel piece was interesting, namely his discussion of the neo-confederate movement. He precedes this by talking about how African Americans tried to preserve their heritage which was an interesting contrast between the way the South tries to remember their heritage. Do you think that either African Americans or proponents of the Confederacy are successfully able to preserve their 'hertiage' and how far should a group of go to do so (like the League of the South)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Shackel starts off his piece by saying that the Lost Cause and the many monuments and other commemoration materials stemmed partly from their being no political outlet for southerners to express their views in. After the Civil War, Southerners were not pushing for the restoration of their cultural heritage and values on a political field, so they turned to commemoration. If neo-confederates are coming into existence, are monuments and commemoration still needed in the South? Why are there neo-confederate politics if the Lost Cause has been such a popular movement, was that movement not enough? - Angie<br />
<br />
McConnell's piece had a lot of interesting points that we have sort of touched on throughout the semester. Towards the end of the chapter, he discusses historical memory and briefly touches on its origins. How much trust and credibility should be placed on historical memory of the Civil War? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I really liked how McConnell discussed public space and how what goes into that public space is reflective of who is in power. If we are to look at public spaces over time and see what has changed or been placed in them (such as monuments, buildings, or even plaques) it seems as though we could make a judgement of who was in power at the time. When confederate memorials were built, it seems safe to say that Confederate sympathizers were in charge. But when a confederate flag is brought down, does that say that they are no longer in that position? In the end, public spaces seem really important to how we understand society. - Angie<br />
<br />
Do you think that historians today should make an effort to try to recognize and establish monuments for people today who were left out by those in power at the time? Or is that part of our history? -MK<br />
<br />
Why do you think there was so much resentment from Southerns to the erection of an Arthur Ash on Monument Avenue in Richmond Virginia, where Ash was from. Was the only reason they were against it was because they felt that the monument did no belong there since this famous avenue only contained monuments of Confederate Generals. Do you think if the Ash monument was put somewhere besides monument avenue that there would have been no resentment against the monument from neo-Confederates.- Nick J<br />
<br />
Why haven't as many African Americans protested the absence of the Robinson family at the Manassas Battlefield? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Shackel talks about the struggle to control public memory. What power struggles for the control over the collective public memory have been or will be at play for the 150th Anniversary of the Civil War? -MK<br />
<br />
The McConnell article talks about how alternate, public histories have become accepted as valid. Is this really the case? History as a field seems quite concerned with getting the public to accept more accurate ideas about why the war started and what its implications were. Most historians seem openly hostile to theories on the cause of the war that neglect to include slavery. -GStan.<br />
<br />
Discussion topics for tomorrow Confederate History and Heritage month, the League of the South, Neo Confederate movement and the Southern party. The way we remember historical monuments. The Lost Cause and Subverting the official History. Logan T<br />
<br />
I think tomorrow is a good day to sum up the semester and all the conclusions that we can drawl from our discussions. Are there only two schools on how the Civil War should be remembered? How has Civil War memory changed over the years? From what we learned from the class how do we think the Civil War will be remembered in the future? Logan T<br />
<br />
What are the pros and cons of master narratives vs. narratives that might focus on one particular aspect of the Civil War? Which do you think is better? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Is McConnell's argument that Politics played the primary role in Civil War memory still valid, or is that only true for the guilded age(which is what he was referring to)? Throughout the course it has seemed that most of the arguments about the civil war are indeed steeped in politics of one sort or another, however, does politics still play the main role in determining Civil War memory? - AJ<br />
<br />
The whole idea of Popular memory as history and whether or not Historians have the right to impose their own version of history that they've researched is messy and complicated, even though we've been studying it all semester. At what point do you think it becomes necessary for historians to impose a "true" version of the history in comparison to popular memory? Or is it simply a game of tug of war between both sides, vying for which version is "true". - AJ<br />
<br />
How do we reconcile multiple meanings and ways of remembering conflict, especially when they are so glaringly different from one another?- DR<br />
<br />
With the sesquicentennial, what stories will be told that we haven't heard before? Will we finally get the "Draft Dodger's Civil War," as McConnell suggests?- DR<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with what Angie commented on regarding public spaces as reflective of the mood of the country at the time of creation/changes etc. But on the flip side of what she was saying, I think it's also important to note the creation/changes by those not in power. Could the establishment of a monument have been in opposition of those in power. In a sense, it's still a statement of who is controlling the atmosphere at the time, but it would be interesting to see how people react. Do they retreat or do they retaliate? - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 13 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-12T06:26:39Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the posts I came across from the cwmemory.com/archives website was from the "Teaching" category. The author of the site basically talked about one of his students who is creating a historical fiction story and wanted to use some primary sources. A comment was made about the post that argued how historical fiction novels can be such good teaching tools; they allow students to relate to the character and also teaches them facts. Do you see any negative aspects of using historical fiction to teach in school or to teach children about the past (e.g. the Civil War)? -avanness<br />
<br />
Another post from the cwmemory.com/archives section under "Slavery" was interesting. The post was about a black Confederate general, Randall Lee Gibson. He, however, did not support his African American heritage, nor did he even know about it until someone brought it to his attention. He definitely seemed like he was a racist; in that he basically supported lynching and said that the African American race was the most degrading race. I think Gibson's story does make it a little questionable as to whether or not he was anhttp://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_13_Questions/Comments--Tuesday&action=edit actual black general or not since he didn't see himself as black nor did the town. Do you think someone who does not define themselves as African American and even is discriminatory against the race should be seen as a black Confederate general or should the he only be given the title "Confederate general"? -avanness<br />
<br />
This site (http://npsfrsp.wordpress.com/) was pretty interesting. I read a piece on Salem Church and the pictures were cool to see since now today the area looks nothing like it did in the early 20th century. The area is currently surrounded by a residential area and plenty of business. What does these new, modern landscapes take away from the memory of the Civil War? Is it okay to have battlefields and such surrounded by modernity? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
I read a piece on cwmemory.com about Lincoln and the mythology that comes with him. In his post, he talks about an interview with Thomas DiLorenzo and Thomas Woods (and has the video, too) where they list various arguments against Lincoln. He criticizes them for not being aware of the scholarship. This seems to be a reoccurring problem that comes with popular histories (and opinions). How important is it that people are aware of the scholarly literature on a topic (even if they are not a historian nor have the training)? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
On cwmemory.com, I read the post about the governor's confederate history month proclamation. I thought he made an interesting point in that the proclamation encourages people to view Virginia's Civil War history from a national perspective, instead of a Virginia-centered perspective. This would mean that slavery was a national problem, not just a Virginian one and that African Americans from VA who fought in the war defeated slavery with the help of the federal government. I disagreed with the proclamation when it was issued, but the author does make some interesting points about its wording. - Angie<br />
<br />
For today's blog post I read an interesting blog concerning Union Black soldiers. Numerous books written about Union soldiers neglects to mention black Union soldiers that participated in the Union war effort, despite them contributing greatly after 1863. Why do you think the contributions by African Americans are also ignored in the commemoration of Union soldiers? -Nick<br />
<br />
I really liked the graffiti section of the npsfrsp blog site mostly because we tend to think of graffiti as a modern sort of delinquency. These soldiers in Falmouth actually tagged different buildings where they were staying by either carving or making a stencil. It seems weird to compare Civil War soldiers with today's graffiti artists but I guess for both of them, its their way of being remembered or leaving something behind. - Angie<br />
<br />
I decided to look at the category "Civil war memory class" on cwmemory.com. In this section, Kevin Levin discusses his thoughts regarding his class form, content, and the general reactions of the students in his high school civil war memory class. In several posts, Levin seems to be trying to demonstrate that the classroom setting is less polemic than he expected. The comments to nearly all his posts reflect this, and it seemed to be a friendly environment to discuss civil war memory. That was my perception until I arrived at his post, <br />
"States Rights v. Slavery: No discernible difference." In the post, he discusses the backgrounds of his students and how their origins do not seem to reflect a bias in civil war education. In that, he has students from the North that were taught a secessionist point of view, and students from the south who were taught that the war was about slavery. He concludes that the difference of approach is based on the teacher and not the area. Someone reacted to his post in the most ridiculous manner. He had apparently misinterpreted this post to be a defense of the secessionist argument and went on a rant about slavery as the cause. What was fascinating about his posts, was that I had never heard such an extreme and ludicrous take on the slavery argument. This guy kept saying that it's time the truth was taught, and I'm sorry for including such a long quote of this comment but it is so ridiculous that I have to include it here:<br />
"I have watched my kid’s history books over the years (four kids, years apart) and noticed how pathetically poliltically correct they all are. Some even claim the South was trying to free the slaves, in time. None, not one, tell the basic truth that the war camem about because the South’s insane demands for the spread of slavery AGAINST the will of the people. Its not only not mentioned in your text books, various bits of BS are there instead. If you can’t teach the truth — because it’s too awful — don’t teach anything. Don’t teach utter nonsense. I don’t expect grade school children, many who are students at schools named after Robert E Lee, to learn that Lee tortured 13 year old children, and sold their infants, and kept a Hunting List of slave girls, in his own handwriting. I don’t expect them to learn in grade school that Lee was obsessed with the capture of one young girl, and paid six times the normal bounty for her, and then had her tortured, and then sold her baby.<br />
You could wait till high school to teach them these awful truths. But at some point, they should learn. Learn that the Southern leaders insisted God ordained not only slavery, but the torture to DEATH of slave women, and that God ordained even the sexual obedience of slave women to their master." Apparently this guy was blocked from posting to the site after more crazy comments following this one. - aaskins<br />
<br />
There are quite a few articles on Levin's site about the black Confederate soldier myth. It is quite prevalent, and there are a suprisingly large number of groups propagating it. As is pointed out by at least one of the articles, and as can be attested to by some of what we have read this semester, this version of the myth is somewhat recent. It used to be that Lost Causers would talk about the faithful slave attending his master before or after battle; it is only more recently that it became about the brave black soldier going into battle alongside his fellow Southerners. Why the change? And is it progress that blacks have risen within this myth at all? -GStan.<br />
<br />
On the nps website, I looked at the category regarding images of destruction in Fredericksburg. Some of the photographs are quite chilling, especially when I realized that these are sites I drive by everyday. They are unrecognizable. It almost seems as though by restoring these houses and buildings, we have erased a major piece of Civil War memory.- aaskins<br />
<br />
I was very interested in the post about the Stonewall Jackson shrine. It discusses if the Stonewall Jackson shrine should have a different name. Do you think the Stonewall Jackson shrine should be renamed and if it should be renamed what should it be renamed to?- Nick<br />
<br />
Nick, when I first started there, I asked about that, because I too was curious about the choice of wording. I was told that "shrine" is an early 20th century term for an exhibit or museum. I can't count the number of folks who walked in and asked about it, and I'm not entirely convinced that that is a proper explanation of the origin of the term. What does everyone else think? How much stake should we put in that explanation?- DR<br />
<br />
Given the recent textbook debates regarding the number of black Confederates under Stonewall Jackson, I thought it was very interesting to see the Prince William County tourist handbook with a young African American dressed in gray. Did anyone else go back to this article? What did you think? DR<br />
<br />
Was anybody else surprised at the amount of knowledge that was expressed in the comments? I know that their were plenty of crazy people making comments but the majority of people that took the time to write comments wrote them concisely and with plenty of historical fact to back up their statements. These guys are not idiots, they know their stuff. Logan T <br />
<br />
I liked the comments that centered on the debate on West Virginia breaking away from Virginia during the war and if this should be mentioned in the Governors proclamation. One guy brought up the fact that many Southern fire eaters supported the concept of States Rights and nullification but at the same supported the fugtive Slave Law which was a federal law that goes against state rights. How much of these types of arguments are missed in the memory of the war? Why do we forget that politicians 150 years are really no different than ones today? Politicians say one thing and do another. Logan T<br />
<br />
One of the posts I read involved the commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the civil war, and also that of the 10th anniversary of 9/11, specifically the lack of commemoration on the part of the national govt. I hadn't thought about it until I read this article but despite the fact that I've heard much about the 150th anniversary of the civil war in our class, I have heard little to nothing about it anywhere else. It's also interesting that they drew the connection between these two anniversaries occurring together much like the 100th year anniversary of the civil war coincided with our nations bicentennial. - AJ <br />
<br />
The civil war memory site is one that I came across many times when looking for a blog post, I never actually took the time to really look at it much beyond the first page because I was too busy on my quest for each weeks post however. Like Logan mentioned though the comments and posts on this site are well thought out and backed up, it's remarkable that I didn't think to browse over these posts for ideas or simply to learn more. - AJ<br />
<br />
I focused my attention to the religion category when looking over the "memoryblog". There really aren't many posts about that topic on the course blog in the resources and we haven't discussed the topic much in class. Levin makes several good points about religion on his posts that are clearly reflected in other discussions we've had even if they didn't have to do with religion directly. I think religion has particular importance in the memory of the war more so than during the war. During the war no one knew the outcome and so they just prayed for a victory. But after the loss for the South, I'm sure they questioned the results and how God played a part in it. I think religion has a lot to do with understanding an event after it's occurred and it would be an interesting area to focus on. In particular, Levin discusses the idea of the war being "punishment" for slavery. It would be interesting to look into that further. -Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-04-07T02:11:51Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>One theme that we kind of keep coming back to and that i think Horwitz's description of Stone Mountain represents, is the difficulty in balancing political correctness with existing symbols of Confederate pride. Is there a way to balance a fair and modern approach to the history of the south while avoiding socially incendiary messages - and still end up with something meaningful? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 312 Horwitz discusses that when he visited Georgia he expected to see reduced homes with charred chimneys, but once again he learned that much of what he had absorbed of the Civil War was more mythic than factual. If Sherman's march to the sea was more mythic than factual in regards to the destruction committed against the Confederate countryside, why do southerners still view Sherman one of if not the biggest Northern villains of the Civil War? What has taken place currently in Civil War memory that make southerners despite Sherman even more today than the did during the Civil Wars?-Nick<br />
<br />
As Horwitz puts it on page 317 why is the fate of prisoner of wars arguably the most neglected aspect of the Civil War? Over 400,000 men were captured during the war and thousands died of diseases due to harsh conditions at prison camps such as Andersonville.Is it because people want to remember simply neglect the pain and suffering that the prison camps symbolized and spend more of their attention on studying aspects of the war that is not as dark and upsetting?- Nick<br />
<br />
How has Montgomery handled its historical treatment of both the Confederacy and Civil Rights? Is it doing something better than other southern towns? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
In the concluding chapter, Horwitz talks about the Robert Warren Penn essay that argues that memorializing the Civil War is "the ritual of being American." Do you think this explains why people without family connections to the Civil War are still passionate about the War? -MK<br />
<br />
Why do you think that the Robinson house was not preserved as well as the Henry house? How does this change the memory of the Battle of Manassas? -MK<br />
<br />
Horwitz concentrates on Andersonville in the chapter "Still Prisoners of this War" and how in many ways the memory of the soldiers remain prisoners. Do you agree that this idea is completely applicable to the memory of the war as a whole in American history? That it is a prisoner to our interpretations? - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_12_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 12 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-04-05T04:43:15Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>One of the most interesting people Horwitz meets - and certainly one of the most provocative - was Walt, the cable-box repairing, Star Trek-loving, anti-Semitic vegetarian. Walt's extremism and white supremacist ideas evolved out of the tumultuous politics of the 1960s and a lack of faith in government. For Walt, the Confederacy represented subjected peoples around the world and he fit them into an obsessive, self-deduced picture of the conspiracies that run the world. Naturally, Walt is a crazy person, but does this progression from the unrest of the 1960s to a neoconfederate position have some kind of linear path? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
How does the grandson of a Russian Jew from "between Minsk and Pinsk" get interested in the Confederacy? R.King<br />
<br />
On page 149 Shelby Foote talks about the "difference between North and South", is this 'difference' why the South still clings to the memory of the Civil War and believes such a distorted history of the event? R. King<br />
<br />
While Horwitz is in Vicksburg, he notices a different kind of racial divide than he saw in some other places. What is different about the culture of Vicksburg? Or is any place in the South a Guthrie waiting to happen? --Erin B.<br />
<br />
When Horwitz is talking to the African American preacher Michael King, he asks him "if there was any way that white Southerns to honor their forebears without insulting his." King responded with: "Remember you ancestors, but remember what they fought for too. and recognize it was wrong." (pg. 44) I was just curious what yall's thoughts on this was... -MK<br />
<br />
It bugged me, honestly. I don't think the South was "wrong" for what they fought for, and I don't think the north was inherently right. The ideology and rhetoric coming out of the Civil War is that the North was fighting to end racism. We've all come to realize that wasn't really the case, and that the South may honestly have just been fighting to maintain their beliefs. While I don't view myself as a Lost Causer, I think it is a little naive to immediately say that what the South fought for was wrong. --Cash<br />
<br />
In Chapter 6, Horwitz is at the reenactment of the Battle of Wilderness. He discusses some of the draws for reenactors to either fight for the North or South. One of the reasons for siding with the South was "Americans' instinctive allegiance to underdogs." (pg. 136) How much do you think this plays into the general public's minds about the South? -MK<br />
<br />
Before reading this book, I never realized how hardcore some Confederate re-enactors really were, although it does seem to be the select few. These guys, like Hodge, try really hard to get everything exactly right and are willing to re-enact in the dreariest of weather conditions. It makes me wonder, if they try so hard to get the clothes, rations, and battles exactly right, do they try really hard to get the political or social history of the war right as well? - Angie<br />
<br />
Of course, they'd be adamant that you use the term "living history" rather than "reenacting." But the point still stands-these guys are nuts. I have never hear someone use antiquated terminology (read: racist terms) or discuss the political environment of the 1860's, but I'm sure it happens.- Drew<br />
<br />
After our recent discussion of the Confederate battle flag, the section on Michael Westerman, the man with the flag on his truck who was killed in Kentucky, really struck me. I think that this shooting really shows how controversial and dangerous this symbol has become. Horwitz says that during the war, the majority of that county did not even support the Confederacy. The flag seemed to have no real history in the place, yet it became an enormous problem anyways. - Angie<br />
<br />
What is the reason for the continued care and devotion southerners show to the civil war, as seen through Horowitz's many travels? (Family, history highs, religion, way of life, etc)- AJ<br />
<br />
Is Reenacting truly the "most popular vehicle for civil war remembrance" as Horwitz states on pg 126, or is it just one vehicle? It's hard to discount media, even if it has to be narrowed into subcategories of movies, internet,etc, as a huge vehicle for civil war remembrance. - AJ<br />
<br />
When Horwitz interviews Walt, Walt expresses his disapproval of the State, and insists that he considers himself as a citizen of the Confederate States of America, which has been under military occupation for the last 130 years. I think this is the most extreme example of a Lost Causer I have ever heard of, and frankly, it did not even cross my mind that someone would believe such a thing. Can Walt even be lumped in as a Lost Causer, or is he in whole different category of Confederate loyalists?- aaskins<br />
<br />
I find it fascinating how the Civil War has developed into a sort of cult culture. Horwitz's descriptions of the reenactors I think best illustrate the constant connection (physical and emotional) with this past event and how much it dominates the present.- aaskins<br />
<br />
After our somewhat disparaging comments about Shelby Foote the other day, I found myself understanding- if not agreeing with- his analysis that the Civil War "measures what we are, good and bad. If you look at American history as the life span of a man, the Civil War represents the great trauma of our adolescence. It's the sort of experience we never forget." So my question is: do you agree, or does such a comparison feel forced?- Drew<br />
<br />
At one point Horwitz is speaking with an elderly black woman that weaves and sells baskets. He asks her if it bothers her that the stand next to her is so outwardly pro-confederacy and she replies that "they can talk about the war all they want as long as they remember they lost". Throughout many of the books we're read and discussions that we've had, the idea of the South having lost the war is somewhat more complicated than it should be. The word "lost" seems to have taken on a different idea to many lost causers. So does the South remember that it lost like this woman states? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
What did you all make of the forgotten "skirmish" of the Citadel cadets? The importance that the institution held it at just reminded me of another claim to fame that you see all over the East Coast. Just another "George Washington slept here" kind of thing. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-03-10T04:13:55Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>Coski describes numerous compromises in the South regarding the Confederate flag. With a symbol as emotionally charged as the Confederate flag, is compromise acceptable?- aaskins<br />
<br />
If public display of the confederate flag was to be banned, which of the following two reactions would be most likely: <br />
1. support for the flag would surge and incite greater conflict OR<br />
2. people would move past the issue, and learn to forget.<br />
-aaskins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how people began to cite different hypocrisies in school systems that tried to ban the Confederate Flag. Do you think school systems were right in trying to ban the flag or do you think it just caused more problems? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
We talked about this a little on Tuesday, but Coski discusses the meaning of the Confederate Flag overseas in Europe. He states "the Europeans have grasped something that Americans take for granted: the Confederate flag is fundamentally an American Flag" (293). Do you agree with his statement in that American's take the Confederate Flag for granted as an American Flag? Do you think it is an American Flag? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The Battle Flag has been compared to many other symbols that have been perceived as intolerant, like the swastika or even symbols of black power. Are some of these more apt than others? Is there an absolute line that can be drawn between what it is comporable to and what it isn't, one rooted in history? Or is it all relative? -GStan.<br />
<br />
I thought the controversy that involved the college student named Kerrigan who hung her confederate flag out her window on campus was interesting. If she told people she did this because it reminded her of home and her heritage why did people continue to be defensive about the matter and insist her actions were inappropriate? -avanness<br />
<br />
Do defenders of the Confederate flag have a right to be able to fly the flag in public because of the first amendment? Are their rights being violated? -avanness<br />
<br />
Avanness, I think that since people are protected under the first amendment in the burning of the American Flag, that defenders of the Confederate Flag are equally protected in their flying of the flag in public. -MK<br />
<br />
I left the section about tolerance (or lack there of) for the battle flag in public schools feeling rather confused. I think that the courts generally did the right thing in protecting the rights of the minority against intimidation but there are some cases, like the middle school kid who got suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in his notebook, that seem a little ridiculous. It seems like some schools are censoring before there was really even an issue, because they think the flag is inherently racist. Which brings us to the debate of whether or not the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism or a heritage symbol… or both? I’m really not sure what I think. - Angie<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that groups like the SCV and UDC tried to distance themselves quite far from the Klan. When they were campaigning to keep the battle flag at the Capitol in Alabama, it was their worst fear that the Klan would start campaigning for it as well because that would just prove to everyone that it really was a racial symbol. They were both campaigning for the flag to stay but for completely different reasons. - Angie<br />
<br />
Do you think the prominence of the flying of the Confederate Flag in response to the Civil Rights Movement added more the rebel image or the racist image of the Confederate Flag? -MK<br />
<br />
On page 235 Coski makes the statement"the University of Mississippi succeeded in limiting individual free speech with regulations couched in the language of safety and comfort." I understood the "safety and comfort" issue as the Universities ban of flags on sticks (229). How is this a " limiting" of first amendment rights? R.King<br />
<br />
As many others have already stated, it's interesting to note the hypocrisies that many of the students complained about when their schools attempted to ban confederate symbols. How does one distinguish between which symbols are acceptable and which ones are not. I'm not entirely sure it's possible without being criticized. However, I thought the identification of symbols that caused dangerous situations was a good attempted. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Aside from the discussion of the confederate symbols in a college setting, how much do you think the younger kids were being spurred on by their parents political and social feelings? I have a feeling it was...a lot. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_8_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 8 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-03-10T04:12:16Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>Coski describes numerous compromises in the South regarding the Confederate flag. With a symbol as emotionally charged as the Confederate flag, is compromise acceptable?- aaskins<br />
<br />
If public display of the confederate flag was to be banned, which of the following two reactions would be most likely: <br />
1. support for the flag would surge and incite greater conflict OR<br />
2. people would move past the issue, and learn to forget.<br />
-aaskins<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how people began to cite different hypocrisies in school systems that tried to ban the Confederate Flag. Do you think school systems were right in trying to ban the flag or do you think it just caused more problems? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
We talked about this a little on Tuesday, but Coski discusses the meaning of the Confederate Flag overseas in Europe. He states "the Europeans have grasped something that Americans take for granted: the Confederate flag is fundamentally an American Flag" (293). Do you agree with his statement in that American's take the Confederate Flag for granted as an American Flag? Do you think it is an American Flag? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The Battle Flag has been compared to many other symbols that have been perceived as intolerant, like the swastika or even symbols of black power. Are some of these more apt than others? Is there an absolute line that can be drawn between what it is comporable to and what it isn't, one rooted in history? Or is it all relative? -GStan.<br />
<br />
I thought the controversy that involved the college student named Kerrigan who hung her confederate flag out her window on campus was interesting. If she told people she did this because it reminded her of home and her heritage why did people continue to be defensive about the matter and insist her actions were inappropriate? -avanness<br />
<br />
Do defenders of the Confederate flag have a right to be able to fly the flag in public because of the first amendment? Are their rights being violated? -avanness<br />
<br />
Avanness, I think that since people are protected under the first amendment in the burning of the American Flag, that defenders of the Confederate Flag are equally protected in their flying of the flag in public. -MK<br />
<br />
I left the section about tolerance (or lack there of) for the battle flag in public schools feeling rather confused. I think that the courts generally did the right thing in protecting the rights of the minority against intimidation but there are some cases, like the middle school kid who got suspended for drawing a Confederate flag in his notebook, that seem a little ridiculous. It seems like some schools are censoring before there was really even an issue, because they think the flag is inherently racist. Which brings us to the debate of whether or not the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism or a heritage symbol… or both? I’m really not sure what I think. - Angie<br />
<br />
I found it really interesting that groups like the SCV and UDC tried to distance themselves quite far from the Klan. When they were campaigning to keep the battle flag at the Capitol in Alabama, it was their worst fear that the Klan would start campaigning for it as well because that would just prove to everyone that it really was a racial symbol. They were both campaigning for the flag to stay but for completely different reasons. - Angie<br />
<br />
Do you think the prominence of the flying of the Confederate Flag in response to the Civil Rights Movement added more the rebel image or the racist image of the Confederate Flag? -MK<br />
<br />
On page 235 Coski makes the statement"the University of Mississippi succeeded in limiting individual free speech with regulations couched in the language of safety and comfort." I understood the "safety and comfort" issue as the Universities ban of flags on sticks (229). How is this a " limiting" of first amendment rights? R.King<br />
<br />
As many others have already stated, it's interesting to note the hypocrisies that many of the students complained about when their schools attempted to ban confederate symbols. How does one distinguish between which symbols are acceptable and which ones are not. I'm not entirely sure it's possible without being criticized. However, I thought the identification of symbols that caused dangerous situations was a good attempted. - V. Yale<br />
<br />
Aside from the discussion of the confederate symbols in a college setting, how much do you think the younger kids were being spurred on by their parents political and social feelings? I have a feeling it was...a lot. - V. Yale</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_7_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 7 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-24T02:58:44Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>I thought the conversation Ferguson had with the man, Robert, at the conference was interesting. In particular, "Southerners accepted Jim Crow only with the greatest reluctance, he told me. Segregation was a response to demands from the Northern businessmen following the Civil War," was an idea I have not heard of. I wonder, do you think this is a more modern argument on the side of the South to defend their reasons as to why they created such strict segregation laws or was this what "Lost Causers" and Southerners would have claimed even in the late 1800s? -avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
How do you think the smaller Lincoln memorial in Richmond and the grand statue of Abe Lincoln in Washington, D.C. differ in their effectiveness and meaning for people? What was the purpose behind creating one so large and one that sat among the people? -avanness<br />
<br />
On page 65 Ferguson discusses how William Petersen wrote ''''Lincoln-Douglas: The Weather as Destiny'''', which tied Lincoln's behavior to the weather. I found this to be very interesting and was wondering what do you think Lincoln's mood/ behavior would be in certain kinds of weather? Also does weather actually have any effect on our mood? -Nick J<br />
<br />
This book immediately, and throughout, reminded me of Confederates in the Attic. I know it has not been assigned yet, but for those of us who have already ready it, I think it bears mentioning that the authors write very similarly. They even describe how they were obsessed with the Civil War when they were little (different sides though!) and how it faded away when they were teens. Furthermore, they both spend their book on a quest to find out the real meaning behind America’s obsession with these Civil War figures. I feel like they are practically the same book, just dealing with different sides. – Angie<br />
<br />
I found it interesting, but not surprising, that it was elites who wanted to put the statue of Abe and Tad in Richmond. They were even southern elites who defended the honor of the Confederacy, like the Dabney fellow. Why does this socioeconomic class tend to be more reconciliationist than others? They were ones who essentially owned the South during the Civil War anyways. Why aren’t they as offended by a Northern statue in the Confederate capitol? – Angie<br />
<br />
I was surprised that Ferguson opened with the controversy over the Lincoln statue. I was expecting a brief history or a run down of his presidency to get the readers aquainted with the topic especially since this isn't an academic work. Does this reinforce the idea the everyone is expected to know who Lincoln was and what he did? And do you think this was the best way to jump into the story? I agree with Angie too, this book really reminds me of "Confederates in the Attic". - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-17T05:39:15Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woodrow Wilson’s speech, he repeatedly talks about how the 50 years since the Civil War have been “peaceful” and have been “without class or difference of kind or race or origin.” It seems like he is talking about a completely different country considering violence against African Americans was at its height in the 50 years after the war. Its not surprising, as Blight points out, that African Americans were opposed to reunions such as these. I wouldn’t want to listen to an idealized memory that was fundamentally false either. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that while the general theme in the North after the war was to move on, McKinley’s campaign actually brought up the war in order to win. They compared the masses that were marching for federal aid to those rebellious Southerners of the Civil War. Basically, if someone was disturbing the peacefulness of union, then they were akin to a Confederate. I guess this shows that the North really hadn’t forgotten the war and were willing to use it for their convenience. - Angie<br />
<br />
Kelly begins his article stating that the GOP's slogan for the 1896 election was "Vote as you shot." But after reading the rest of the article, it did not seem to me that this was an appropriate quote to describe the issues at play during this election. If the true concern was to avoid class conflict and sectionalism as the Republican party claims Bryan was going to cause, then why would they say to vote as shot?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
Topic for discussion: the role of blacks in raising historical awareness. How did people such as Grimké ad Du Bois use memorial and patriotic rhetoric to raise the issue of emancipation memory? Is their own patriotic discourse a distortion of memory?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
Why would President Wilson say "In their presence it were an impertinence to discourse upon how the battle went, how it ended, what it signified!"? Wasn't it the purpose of the reunion to "to talk over the events of the battle here as man to man" as stated by Governor Mann? -- R.King<br />
<br />
In 1896 the GOP platform for the first time since the end of the Civil War omitted any demand that the federal government use it's military power to guarantee black suffrage in the South. (Fahs,Waugh 181) The New York Times approved of this move stating that it indicated McKinley's "sagacity...appealing to a common patriotism to protect the Nation's honor." Were the Jim Crow laws honorable? --R.King<br />
<br />
Earlier in our reading about the Shaw memorial a question was raised about whether the memorial degraded the African/American soldier by moving him to the background, in today's reading we heard from W.E.B DuBois regarding the Shaw memorial, "How extraordinary, and what a tribute to ignorance and religious hypocrisy, is the fact that in the minds of the people...only murder makes men. The slave pleaded; he was humble; he protected the women of the South, and the world ignored him. The slave killed white men; and behold, he was a man!"Does this quote prove that the memorial was in fact a monument to the African/American fighting man? --R.King<br />
<br />
I brought this question up in an earlier wiki post but it seems extremely relevant now, especially regarding Angie's comment about the violence towards African Americans during the 50 years after the Civil War. Do you think that the white supremacy ideology was the basis of the reconciliation of the Union? -MK<br />
<br />
Fahs and Waugh spend a great deal of time talking about the impact and influence veterans had on the election. Why do you think that is not so much the case today? -MK<br />
<br />
How did veteran's groups become so influential in the politics of the late 19th century? Why did people like Dani Sickles and Franz Sigel find success in their campaigns against Bryan? Was it simply their status as generals, or were other factors at play?- DRadtke<br />
<br />
What do the nominations of Bryan and McKinley tell us about the state of the memory of the Civil War in the mid-1890's?- DR<br />
<br />
The Patriotic Heroes' Battalion who were a group of Civil War veterans campaigned heavily for McKinley, and brought with them several important messages relating back to Civil War memory. The most important of the message being 1896 is as vitally important to our country as 1861. What do you think the veterans meant by this statement? Nick<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Angie, Wilsons speech was thoroughly whitewashing the country's attitude towards race relations. Was this just another attempt to "move on" and just reconcile? We discussed in class the issue of moving on and how some feared this was a negative thing, to forget what caused the war. Seems like that is exactly what Wilson wanted. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Blight opens this chapter with the discussion of Saint-Gaudens's Shaw memorial. We've discussed in class how moving this memorial is, but do you think there would have been a different response if it hadn't be revealed when it had (1897)? This was in the middle of the peak of lynching, could that have added significance to it? What if it had been revealed 20 years later, when race relations seems to have been a taboo subject? How did the timing influence the reaction? - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-17T05:33:16Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>In Woodrow Wilson’s speech, he repeatedly talks about how the 50 years since the Civil War have been “peaceful” and have been “without class or difference of kind or race or origin.” It seems like he is talking about a completely different country considering violence against African Americans was at its height in the 50 years after the war. Its not surprising, as Blight points out, that African Americans were opposed to reunions such as these. I wouldn’t want to listen to an idealized memory that was fundamentally false either. - Angie<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that while the general theme in the North after the war was to move on, McKinley’s campaign actually brought up the war in order to win. They compared the masses that were marching for federal aid to those rebellious Southerners of the Civil War. Basically, if someone was disturbing the peacefulness of union, then they were akin to a Confederate. I guess this shows that the North really hadn’t forgotten the war and were willing to use it for their convenience. - Angie<br />
<br />
Kelly begins his article stating that the GOP's slogan for the 1896 election was "Vote as you shot." But after reading the rest of the article, it did not seem to me that this was an appropriate quote to describe the issues at play during this election. If the true concern was to avoid class conflict and sectionalism as the Republican party claims Bryan was going to cause, then why would they say to vote as shot?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
Topic for discussion: the role of blacks in raising historical awareness. How did people such as Grimké ad Du Bois use memorial and patriotic rhetoric to raise the issue of emancipation memory? Is their own patriotic discourse a distortion of memory?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
Why would President Wilson say "In their presence it were an impertinence to discourse upon how the battle went, how it ended, what it signified!"? Wasn't it the purpose of the reunion to "to talk over the events of the battle here as man to man" as stated by Governor Mann? -- R.King<br />
<br />
In 1896 the GOP platform for the first time since the end of the Civil War omitted any demand that the federal government use it's military power to guarantee black suffrage in the South. (Fahs,Waugh 181) The New York Times approved of this move stating that it indicated McKinley's "sagacity...appealing to a common patriotism to protect the Nation's honor." Were the Jim Crow laws honorable? --R.King<br />
<br />
Earlier in our reading about the Shaw memorial a question was raised about whether the memorial degraded the African/American soldier by moving him to the background, in today's reading we heard from W.E.B DuBois regarding the Shaw memorial, "How extraordinary, and what a tribute to ignorance and religious hypocrisy, is the fact that in the minds of the people...only murder makes men. The slave pleaded; he was humble; he protected the women of the South, and the world ignored him. The slave killed white men; and behold, he was a man!"Does this quote prove that the memorial was in fact a monument to the African/American fighting man? --R.King<br />
<br />
I brought this question up in an earlier wiki post but it seems extremely relevant now, especially regarding Angie's comment about the violence towards African Americans during the 50 years after the Civil War. Do you think that the white supremacy ideology was the basis of the reconciliation of the Union? -MK<br />
<br />
Fahs and Waugh spend a great deal of time talking about the impact and influence veterans had on the election. Why do you think that is not so much the case today? -MK<br />
<br />
How did veteran's groups become so influential in the politics of the late 19th century? Why did people like Dani Sickles and Franz Sigel find success in their campaigns against Bryan? Was it simply their status as generals, or were other factors at play?- DRadtke<br />
<br />
What do the nominations of Bryan and McKinley tell us about the state of the memory of the Civil War in the mid-1890's?- DR<br />
<br />
The Patriotic Heroes' Battalion who were a group of Civil War veterans campaigned heavily for McKinley, and brought with them several important messages relating back to Civil War memory. The most important of the message being 1896 is as vitally important to our country as 1861. What do you think the veterans meant by this statement? Nick<br />
<br />
I totally agree with Angie, Wilsons speech was thoroughly whitewashing the country's attitude towards race relations. Was this just another attempt to "move on" and just reconcile? We discussed in class the issue of moving on and how some feared this was a negative thing, to forget what caused the war. Seems like that is exactly what Wilson wanted. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_6_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 6 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-02-15T07:08:57Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>On page 229, Blight discusses Joel Chandler Harris' story "The Comedy of War" he describes an impending battle on Squire Farnborogh's farm. Apparently the Squire has a son fighting in each army. Although the story is fiction is there truth to the fact that brother faced brother, and how common place was this? --R. King<br />
<br />
Blight seems to be saying that the Underground Railroad is a myth, is this true? -- R. King<br />
<br />
Is DuBois' address an attempt to refute the Lost Cause ideology? -- R. King<br />
<br />
We had discussed to a limited extent in class the ways in which classical ideals played into a creation of the memory of the Confederacy. DuBois seems to strike at the heart of this when he says, "we seek in vain the Teutonic deification of Self, and Roman brute force." Why else would he feel it necessary to base his speech around the glories of the Teutonic or the Roman Empires, unless he saw the Lost Cause becoming institutionalized?- DRadtke<br />
mell sought<br />
DuBois argues that the nation that Jefferson Davis represented was getting in the way of civilization of the United States. How might Southern Lost Causers counter this argument? -MK<br />
<br />
The rhetoric that Frederick Douglass uses in his Decoration Day speech is similar to the rhetoric of the Lost Cause- especially when speaking about how the future generations would "study the deeds of fathers.." Are their motivations similar? -MK<br />
<br />
On page 214, Blight discusses that the Lost Cause was born at Appomattox in the dignified manner of Robert E. Lee's surrender and in his attribution of defeat to "superior numbers of resources," surely the spirit of reunion was, in part, born there as well. Do you agree with this statement that the Lost cause was created when the Civil War ended due to Grant's lenient terms to Robert E. Lee? Nick<br />
<br />
Alexander Crummell and Fredrick Douglass had differing interpretations concerning the remembrance of slavery and emancipation. Both Douglass and Crummel sought racial uplight, but one would take the risk of sustaining a sense of historic grievance against America as the means of making the nation fulfill its promises. For example Crummell sought to redeem Africa, and to inspire moral values in the freedpeople by the example of an elite black leadership while Douglass embraced the same values but sought to redeem the civil and political rights established by the verdicts of Fort Wagner and Appomattox. Which view became the chief perspective of African American remembrance? Nick<br />
<br />
The story of "Meh Lady" presents a rather utopian view of life in the South. Not only are the slaves happy there, but so too is a Yankee soldier, who marries Meh Lady. The characters view the events after the fall of Richmond as a collapse of a civilization. However, the end provides the hope that a new country could rise from the metaphorical ashes. What was it about Southern society that made it so infallible? It is telling, in my opinion, that the faithful slave narrative developed, clearly as an attempt to reconcile a vision of the South as a utopia, even with an institution like slavery at its core.- DRadtke<br />
<br />
Albion Tourgee wanted people to remember "only the causes that underlay the struggle and the results that followed from it." But would most Americans have agreed with Tourgee about what the causes were? -GStan.<br />
<br />
It's interesting that Du Bois would call for the strong to submit in order for all to advance. I wonder if he only meant that in a racial sense; he was known for being elitist. He believed the advancement of his people lay with its "Talented Tenth." I'm not sure where this speech fits into that message. -GStan.<br />
<br />
Blight’s chapter on the literature on reunion and its discontents in the beginning (like in every chapter) the fight about what the war was fought over. Most of Blight’s arguments center on this theme and how both sides differed. Later in the chapter he describes literature written about combat and prisons during the war. Blight discusses soldier’s romanticized version of combat and generals arguing their roles in the war. Was all literature on the war centered on these subjects? Was there not literature on the war itself instead of its causes? Were there any debates about battle outcomes, decision made during the war or political actions, like in modern scholarship? Logan T<br />
<br />
Do you think Blight's comparison of post-Civil War writers (Grant, Tourgee, Page, etc.) is an accurate reflection of the competing ideas of the war and the South in the public sphere during the time of their publications? And what about Tourgee's idea regarding the "forgetting" of the war? Obviously people hadn't forgotten about it, so what did he mean by this thought?- Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_5_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 5 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-02-10T04:53:58Z<p>Vyale: </p>
<hr />
<div>The textbook war waged by the UCV and the UDC had the interesting outcome of causing Northern publishers to pander to Southern narratives out of fear of a boycott of their products. This is a good illustration of the issues of the Civil War simply meaning more to the South than it did to the North. I wonder, though, if these discrepancies were ever noted by Northern schoolchildren in any way nearly approaching that of Southern school children. – Erin B.<br />
<br />
Do you read the trends in juvenile Civil War fiction in the 1880s as an attempt to instill the ideals they supported (white supremacy, white reconciliation, etc.) or were the writers simply responding to the market? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
The issue over the "truthful" history of the Civil has been a common link between all the various readings this week, especially in McPherson's essay concerning textbooks. He mentions how Rutherford created her own "facts" surrounding the Civil War which were completely false. How do you think this push by the South to embody the Lost Cause rhetoric in textbooks has affected the memory of the war today? Also, do you think these "facts" presented by Rutherford should be considered as historical interpretations of the war despite their untruthfulness? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
I have never learned about some of the beliefs that Grant had about the Civil War that he wrote in "Report to Congress." In particular, Grant said that South's advantages offset Northern superiority and that Northern soldiers fought just as well and under more difficult circumstances to that of the South. Do you agree with these statements? Do you think the South really did have more advantages in the war or was this just a ploy by Grant to get people to believe the North had to work harder in order to win? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
To add to our conversation from Tuesday, the essay in Fahs and Waugh on textbooks talked about how veterans wanted to keep the "Confederate heritage alive through children of veterans." Do you think these textbooks and the push to get the "correct" history of the war written down from the South's perspective are two reasons as to why the Lost Cause view is still around today and just as popular especially in the South? Were the ex-Confederates trying to create a legacy they knew would continue to be alive more than 100 years later because of their children and future relatives? -Avanness<br />
<br />
Waugh talks about Grant's ability to write "clear and forceful battle reports" and how this was the same for when he was writing his memoirs. Do you think that his ability to make himself look successful makes his autobiography more of a work of fiction? -MK<br />
<br />
In the trends of the children's books, Fahs argues that both Optic and Page used notions of white supremacy and white reconciliation and how because of this African Americans were typically left out. Do you think that the only way for the Union to reconcile was through the ideology of white supremacy? -MK<br />
<br />
Why do you think many of the Southern monuments allude to the Romans and Greeks? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Are there any other Civil War Memorials/Monuments dedicated to noncombatants. Is John Calhoun's in Charleston the only one? What might have prevented the creation of other memorials like his? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Why was Grant afraid of leaving the legacy of the war in politicians' hands? How would/could they have altered the legacy? Is his fear unfounded?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
"Truth was derived from facts but not dependent upon them." (pp. 21) Both Waugh and McPherson touch upon this theme of revealing the "true" history. But Waugh emphasizes that Grant's memoir was perceived (at least by his fans) as the correct version of the Civil War. Is he presenting the truth (as he claims is his purpose) or is this merely another example of derived-truth?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
McPherson and Fahs discuss the relationship between Civil War memory and children through memorial services and literature. One thing that wasn't mentioned is the trend of naming children (and grandchildren) after Civil War figures. Has this been effective in creating "living monuments" as McPherson discusses? Is the name-legacy still prevalent (and if so, is it more for southern memory or northern)? Is it an effective method of instilling Civil War appreciation in descendants of veterans?- Aaskins<br />
<br />
In Waugh’s article about Grant’s memoirs, she discusses how Grant was aiming to set the record straight and tell the world the “truth” about why the war was fought. Similarly, the South was attempting to do the same thing, but their “truth” was quite different. Why did Grant and his truth fall to the wayside when up against the South and their truth? - Angie<br />
<br />
I found it interesting in Fahs article how the themes in children’s civil war stories changed from during the war to after the war. For example, during the war, wealth was portrayed as a negative characteristic, but afterwards it was a good characteristic. It’s not surprising that people’s priorities change as the country changes, but I do find it surprising that stories from the same author and about the same event can have such different themes in them. - Angie<br />
<br />
The Confederacy's statesmen and military leaders were all forced into retirement, while the Republicans held the reigns of power and placed their greatest war hero in the highest seat of government. Did this negatively affect the legacies of the northern combatants? Or did the south's revisionist predilections make that inevitable? -GStan.<br />
<br />
Waugh discusses how proponents of the Lost Cause attempted to discredit Grant by destroying his reputation and enhancing Lee's. Do you think they were successful in their attempts? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Waugh represents Grant's memoirs as filled with the theme of reconstruction. Do you agree? How is this represented? And what about the deminishing of Grant's reputation compared to Lee's, do you think that had any influence on his personal feelings that might have been represented in his memoirs? - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_3_Questions/Comments--Tuesday471A3--Week 3 Questions/Comments--Tuesday2011-01-25T03:41:21Z<p>Vyale: /* Trelease */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Overarching questions/Debate topics ==<br />
I think that an important concept that needs to be discussed in class is if you believe the Union could have done more to prevent violence committed against African Americans? Throughout the readings it seems that the Union tried to prevent violent acts committed by the KKK but that they could have done a lot more to stop the violence committed in the South.-Nick<br />
<br />
== Trelease ==<br />
<br />
Were any of the Senators/Representatives in the KKK Hearings from the South? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
“Heretofore such men had served their masters only in the fields; now they would do not less faithful service at the polls.” As Trelease points out, “Nowhere did white underestimation of negro intelligence show itself more clearly.” While this opinion was not held the majority of white Southerners, it does demonstrate the paternalistic impulse left over from slavery. What were some of the ways in which vigilantism like the KKK was rationalized alongside a belief in a childlike dependence by the former slaves? – Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 5 Trealease writes about the belief that Emancipation increased the Southern white rape complex because freedom presumably stimulated the Negro's innate passion for white women and removed external restrains. What are your thoughts about this supreme taboo that was held by Southern whites?- Nick<br />
<br />
As Trelease states in the introduction, blacks were never advocating for supremacy of whites, simply equality. If whites saw blacks as incapable of taking care of their own wellbeing without a slavemaster, why were many so whites afraid of blacks rise to equality and feel the need maintain control over them? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Fahs/Waugh, "Anna Dickinson" ==<br />
<br />
Many men believed that women belonged in the home and not in politics, yet here was Dickinson giving political lectures and being asked by candidates to support them in her speeches (shown in Fahs and Wah’s reading when Greeley and Wilson were trying to “lure her into the campaign. Pg167) Dickinson might not have been lecturing for women’s suffrage by why wasn’t she used as an example that women did have the mind to understand politics and be allowed to vote? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
Really a bummer of an ending. When reading about the political atmosphere/discussion from this period, you almost have to expect high levels of partisan and sectional loyalties that frame all arguments and contribute to the legacy of bitterness one associates with Reconstruction – which makes reading about Dickinson and the nomination of Greeley by the Democrats all the more interesting and complicating. What could have made Dickinson hesitant to align herself more with the biggest names in women’s suffrage? –Erin B.<br />
<br />
"Dickinson, like Grant, was a veteran of the Civil War." Do you think that because the so much of the population considered themselves to be veterans, regardless if they actually fought in the war itself, helped Dickinson use Civil War memory to her advantage through her speeches? - MK<br />
<br />
Dickinson seemed to be well received by her audiences. How often did women, like Dickinson, give speeches of this caliber, and did they usually receive the same attention (whether positive or negative)? Also, both parties were persistent in getting Dickinson to work for their campaigns. Why do you think they chose to solicit her specifically? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting how I had never heard of Anna Dickinson before yet she seemed to be a very popular speaker and lecturer at the time. She was associated with the group of people who put the issue of women suffrage aside to take on the issue of abolition. Do you think this is a reason she has not had her name mentioned as much as let's say Susan B. Anthony who continued to take on women's rights at the time? -Avanness<br />
<br />
== Blight ==<br />
<br />
Blight talks about the healing process of the nation was on the South's terms. Do you think he is fair in his assessment? -MK<br />
<br />
On page 117 Blight states "Klan violence against blacks in the Reconstruction South succeeded especially in its uses of fear." What role do you think fear plays in the recollection of black memory from this period? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
<br />
Blight states a couple of times that Northerners did not feel ready to make reconstruction=reconciliation. They believed they shouldn't have to completely forgive and forget the South and the Civil War. Do you think the Northerners who shared this opinion were being fair to the South? Were their opinions part of the reason reconstruction wasn't successful right from the beginning? -Avanness<br />
<br />
On page 111 Blight makes the following statement; "In Southern lore, in formal history, and eventually in popular culture, the Klan, as saviors of Southern society, racial order, and white womanhood attained a heroic image in American memory..." I can accept the "Southern lore" aspect and if the "formal history" was one written for a Southern audience I can accept that, but to say that the Klan were "heroic" in the context of the entire nation I have serious disagreements with Mr. Blight. I find it hard to believe that Blight believes it either, since following this statement he provides several pages of eyewitness accounts refuting the heroic nature of the Klan. Why would Blight make such a statement to begin with? -- R. King<br />
<br />
Blight again makes a statement on page 123 that is confusing to say the least, "Although Grant had stood up to the Klan and used federal authority to put it put of business in the South..." Was the Klan really put out of business? --R.King</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-20T04:20:54Z<p>Vyale: /* Blight */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Faust ==<br />
<br />
<br />
As mentioned in class, the people at this time did not have the ability to figure out who was who based on DNA when trying to bury them and report to their families. In Faust's reading, somehow James Moore was able to identify 12,912 of the 13,363 bodies of Union soldiers from Andersonville. This just seems remarkable. How long did it take him to figure the identifications of so many men? And how? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Faust talks about how the national reburial program led to the redefining of the nation. How did the treatment of the dead jeopardize the redefinition of the nation? --MK <br />
<br />
Faust discusses the role of blacks in the burials of Union soldiers across the South (192-193) and how impartial blacks were to helping the bury the Union dead. Why do you think this was, and what kind of fears do you think the slaves encountered from whites in the south who were hostile to the burying of Union soldiers in the south? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The issue of a proper and honorable burial for soldiers, especially Union soldiers in the South was a problem after the war. How much do you think this process of creating a national cemetery system contributed to reconciliation? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Faust’s piece contrasts the reinterment process taken on by the federal government for Union soldiers with that taken on by families and women’s organizations for Confederates. The disparity really demonstrates some of the unique awkwardness of the Civil War and Reconstruction. How does this particular aspect of the aftermath of the war help to explain some of the long-held, sectional bad feelings? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 191, Faust writes that during Whitman’s long task to find and record Union graves throughout the South, he often came upon graves or graveyards that were terribly unkempt. Even worse, it seemed obvious that the Southerners were destroying the graveyards on purpose. On page 191, he writes that the Southerners had built roads and walkways over the graves that had all but destroyed them while nearby there were Confederate graves that were very well kept. Why did Southerners purposefully destroy Union graves when they themselves knew the feeling of not knowing where their deceased loved ones were? - Angie<br />
<br />
On Page 189 Drew Faust's work "Battle over the Bodies" how the position of the South had changed from stunned disbelief to a posture of growing defiance. One of the ways that the South continued to defy the North was to disturb the grave sites of Union soldiers which the Union was surprised that this type of action was taking place. Faust discusses that the reason for the South to desecrate Union graces was that the graves proved to be an irresistible target for southern rage and was an opportunity to express their refusal of defeat. The Confederacy was unable to defeat a live Union army, but they could stay fight against a dead one.- Nick<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by this article. What are your personal opinions regarding Faust's discussion on violence against protectors of Union corpses. Is confederate desecration of Union tombs and bodies understandable? What are your personal reactions about the violence committed against those trying to protect or bury the bodies? Does this article make you reflect on how body treatment was portrayed in popular Civil War movies? - A. Askins<br />
<br />
Faust mentions how Southerners sometimes refused to give up the location of buried Union soldiers, even after the war. Is this rejection of reconciliation even over the dead a sign of the beginning of Southern resentment towards the North? It's interesting to note that they refused to work together, even over the simplicity of honoring the dead. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Blight ==<br />
<br />
A couple times in Blight's book, African Americans' sentiments towards the war and slavery were mentioned. A good amount of the time it seemed like they wanted to look past the fact that they were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years. Was forgetting slavery something that most African Americans wanted to do in an attempt for reconciliation? This seems like a reaction that immediately followed the war but did not last long. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight briefly talks about how women in the South initially remembered the war after the Confederacy's defeat. A theme of gloom seems overwhelming for many women in the south and how they remembered the war. How often did women in the south feel this "gloomy" emotion after the conclusion of the Civil War and how did it affect their memory of it? Also, what about Northern Women? What were their perceptions on the conclusion of the war and their memories? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Why do we still embrace Blight's "blood feud"? Why haven't we,after one hundred and fifty years,reconciled the Civil War? -- R.King<br />
<br />
Blight discusses how the ideology of the "Lost Cause" developed after the Civil War had ended. The Richmond dispatch discussed that the South had fought for a "sense of rights under the Constitution," "and a conscientious conviction of the justice of their position." They went on to write how the South how sacrificed itself in order to find answers to unsettled questions left by the founding fathers. Do you agree with this statement?- Nick<br />
<br />
On the same note as Avanness comment, do you think this readiness to move on was fueled by the thought that they would be receiving the long denied civil rights? Did they simply desire to move on? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Do you think that the use of songs in the slaves' memory of the Civil War and Emancipation impact or influence the memory for those who were relatively young at the time? --MK<br />
<br />
Why did some slaves "stick to (their)masters"? Was it because they were "too soft" as Felix Haywood stated or was it a relic of the oppression they lived with their entire lives? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 271 of Remembering Slavery, the story of Robert Glenn begins. Glenn’s story is interesting because even after he knew he was free, he decided to stay with his master for a year and even considered staying longer. How many freed slaves continued to stay on and live and work for their ex-masters? Why did they decide to continue to work for the people who had enslaved them even though they were now free? - Angie<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that these accounts seem to be riddles with feelings of "undeserving" and that emancipation had little to no impact on life for slaves. In some accounts (like Felix Haywood's), emancipation is portrayed as overrated and responsible for making life harder for former slaves. Why would these oral histories have such a common tone? Is it possible these accounts were conditioned by the interviewers and ingrained fear?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
Several of the accounts (although not all) we read regarding slavery discuss how the slaves were "content" with their living situations and that it really wasn't so bad. Full bellies and a roof over their heads made up for the "occasional beating". As we discussed in class, do you think this is a biased option based on who the interviewers chose to speak with? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Throughout this reading, I was left thinking of what they say about someone who is deaf or blind. You ask this person, "what is like to be blind?" And they respond, "what is it like to see? It is only a disability to you." While I certainly do not want to justify the experience of slavery, it almost seems as though the speaker of this piece didn't necessarily want to be freed. How prevalent do you think this attitude was? --Cash<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A theme I have noticed throughout our readings, often in Blight, and especially now in Faust, is that of a lost opportunity. There were seemingly small but important mistakes made in message (reconciliation) and administration (the failure to treat Confederate dead the same as Union dead) that were major factors in the formation of Lost Cause ideology. Is this the case? Or were these kinds of ideas inevitable? -GStan.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-20T04:14:46Z<p>Vyale: /* Remembering Slavery */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Faust ==<br />
<br />
<br />
As mentioned in class, the people at this time did not have the ability to figure out who was who based on DNA when trying to bury them and report to their families. In Faust's reading, somehow James Moore was able to identify 12,912 of the 13,363 bodies of Union soldiers from Andersonville. This just seems remarkable. How long did it take him to figure the identifications of so many men? And how? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Faust talks about how the national reburial program led to the redefining of the nation. How did the treatment of the dead jeopardize the redefinition of the nation? --MK <br />
<br />
Faust discusses the role of blacks in the burials of Union soldiers across the South (192-193) and how impartial blacks were to helping the bury the Union dead. Why do you think this was, and what kind of fears do you think the slaves encountered from whites in the south who were hostile to the burying of Union soldiers in the south? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The issue of a proper and honorable burial for soldiers, especially Union soldiers in the South was a problem after the war. How much do you think this process of creating a national cemetery system contributed to reconciliation? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Faust’s piece contrasts the reinterment process taken on by the federal government for Union soldiers with that taken on by families and women’s organizations for Confederates. The disparity really demonstrates some of the unique awkwardness of the Civil War and Reconstruction. How does this particular aspect of the aftermath of the war help to explain some of the long-held, sectional bad feelings? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 191, Faust writes that during Whitman’s long task to find and record Union graves throughout the South, he often came upon graves or graveyards that were terribly unkempt. Even worse, it seemed obvious that the Southerners were destroying the graveyards on purpose. On page 191, he writes that the Southerners had built roads and walkways over the graves that had all but destroyed them while nearby there were Confederate graves that were very well kept. Why did Southerners purposefully destroy Union graves when they themselves knew the feeling of not knowing where their deceased loved ones were? - Angie<br />
<br />
On Page 189 Drew Faust's work "Battle over the Bodies" how the position of the South had changed from stunned disbelief to a posture of growing defiance. One of the ways that the South continued to defy the North was to disturb the grave sites of Union soldiers which the Union was surprised that this type of action was taking place. Faust discusses that the reason for the South to desecrate Union graces was that the graves proved to be an irresistible target for southern rage and was an opportunity to express their refusal of defeat. The Confederacy was unable to defeat a live Union army, but they could stay fight against a dead one.- Nick<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by this article. What are your personal opinions regarding Faust's discussion on violence against protectors of Union corpses. Is confederate desecration of Union tombs and bodies understandable? What are your personal reactions about the violence committed against those trying to protect or bury the bodies? Does this article make you reflect on how body treatment was portrayed in popular Civil War movies? - A. Askins<br />
<br />
Faust mentions how Southerners sometimes refused to give up the location of buried Union soldiers, even after the war. Is this rejection of reconciliation even over the dead a sign of the beginning of Southern resentment towards the North? It's interesting to note that they refused to work together, even over the simplicity of honoring the dead. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Blight ==<br />
<br />
A couple times in Blight's book, African Americans' sentiments towards the war and slavery were mentioned. A good amount of the time it seemed like they wanted to look past the fact that they were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years. Was forgetting slavery something that most African Americans wanted to do in an attempt for reconciliation? This seems like a reaction that immediately followed the war but did not last long. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight briefly talks about how women in the South initially remembered the war after the Confederacy's defeat. A theme of gloom seems overwhelming for many women in the south and how they remembered the war. How often did women in the south feel this "gloomy" emotion after the conclusion of the Civil War and how did it affect their memory of it? Also, what about Northern Women? What were their perceptions on the conclusion of the war and their memories? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Why do we still embrace Blight's "blood feud"? Why haven't we,after one hundred and fifty years,reconciled the Civil War? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Do you think that the use of songs in the slaves' memory of the Civil War and Emancipation impact or influence the memory for those who were relatively young at the time? --MK<br />
<br />
Why did some slaves "stick to (their)masters"? Was it because they were "too soft" as Felix Haywood stated or was it a relic of the oppression they lived with their entire lives? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 271 of Remembering Slavery, the story of Robert Glenn begins. Glenn’s story is interesting because even after he knew he was free, he decided to stay with his master for a year and even considered staying longer. How many freed slaves continued to stay on and live and work for their ex-masters? Why did they decide to continue to work for the people who had enslaved them even though they were now free? - Angie<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that these accounts seem to be riddles with feelings of "undeserving" and that emancipation had little to no impact on life for slaves. In some accounts (like Felix Haywood's), emancipation is portrayed as overrated and responsible for making life harder for former slaves. Why would these oral histories have such a common tone? Is it possible these accounts were conditioned by the interviewers and ingrained fear?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
Several of the accounts (although not all) we read regarding slavery discuss how the slaves were "content" with their living situations and that it really wasn't so bad. Full bellies and a roof over their heads made up for the "occasional beating". As we discussed in class, do you think this is a biased option based on who the interviewers chose to speak with? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A theme I have noticed throughout our readings, often in Blight, and especially now in Faust, is that of a lost opportunity. There were seemingly small but important mistakes made in message (reconciliation) and administration (the failure to treat Confederate dead the same as Union dead) that were major factors in the formation of Lost Cause ideology. Is this the case? Or were these kinds of ideas inevitable? -GStan.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_2_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 2 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-20T04:07:52Z<p>Vyale: /* Faust */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Faust ==<br />
<br />
<br />
As mentioned in class, the people at this time did not have the ability to figure out who was who based on DNA when trying to bury them and report to their families. In Faust's reading, somehow James Moore was able to identify 12,912 of the 13,363 bodies of Union soldiers from Andersonville. This just seems remarkable. How long did it take him to figure the identifications of so many men? And how? –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Faust talks about how the national reburial program led to the redefining of the nation. How did the treatment of the dead jeopardize the redefinition of the nation? --MK <br />
<br />
Faust discusses the role of blacks in the burials of Union soldiers across the South (192-193) and how impartial blacks were to helping the bury the Union dead. Why do you think this was, and what kind of fears do you think the slaves encountered from whites in the south who were hostile to the burying of Union soldiers in the south? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
The issue of a proper and honorable burial for soldiers, especially Union soldiers in the South was a problem after the war. How much do you think this process of creating a national cemetery system contributed to reconciliation? -Avanness<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Faust’s piece contrasts the reinterment process taken on by the federal government for Union soldiers with that taken on by families and women’s organizations for Confederates. The disparity really demonstrates some of the unique awkwardness of the Civil War and Reconstruction. How does this particular aspect of the aftermath of the war help to explain some of the long-held, sectional bad feelings? -Erin B.<br />
<br />
On page 191, Faust writes that during Whitman’s long task to find and record Union graves throughout the South, he often came upon graves or graveyards that were terribly unkempt. Even worse, it seemed obvious that the Southerners were destroying the graveyards on purpose. On page 191, he writes that the Southerners had built roads and walkways over the graves that had all but destroyed them while nearby there were Confederate graves that were very well kept. Why did Southerners purposefully destroy Union graves when they themselves knew the feeling of not knowing where their deceased loved ones were? - Angie<br />
<br />
On Page 189 Drew Faust's work "Battle over the Bodies" how the position of the South had changed from stunned disbelief to a posture of growing defiance. One of the ways that the South continued to defy the North was to disturb the grave sites of Union soldiers which the Union was surprised that this type of action was taking place. Faust discusses that the reason for the South to desecrate Union graces was that the graves proved to be an irresistible target for southern rage and was an opportunity to express their refusal of defeat. The Confederacy was unable to defeat a live Union army, but they could stay fight against a dead one.- Nick<br />
<br />
I was particularly struck by this article. What are your personal opinions regarding Faust's discussion on violence against protectors of Union corpses. Is confederate desecration of Union tombs and bodies understandable? What are your personal reactions about the violence committed against those trying to protect or bury the bodies? Does this article make you reflect on how body treatment was portrayed in popular Civil War movies? - A. Askins<br />
<br />
Faust mentions how Southerners sometimes refused to give up the location of buried Union soldiers, even after the war. Is this rejection of reconciliation even over the dead a sign of the beginning of Southern resentment towards the North? It's interesting to note that they refused to work together, even over the simplicity of honoring the dead. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Blight ==<br />
<br />
A couple times in Blight's book, African Americans' sentiments towards the war and slavery were mentioned. A good amount of the time it seemed like they wanted to look past the fact that they were enslaved and oppressed for hundreds of years. Was forgetting slavery something that most African Americans wanted to do in an attempt for reconciliation? This seems like a reaction that immediately followed the war but did not last long. -Avanness<br />
<br />
Blight briefly talks about how women in the South initially remembered the war after the Confederacy's defeat. A theme of gloom seems overwhelming for many women in the south and how they remembered the war. How often did women in the south feel this "gloomy" emotion after the conclusion of the Civil War and how did it affect their memory of it? Also, what about Northern Women? What were their perceptions on the conclusion of the war and their memories? -ABratchie<br />
<br />
Why do we still embrace Blight's "blood feud"? Why haven't we,after one hundred and fifty years,reconciled the Civil War? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
== Remembering Slavery ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Do you think that the use of songs in the slaves' memory of the Civil War and Emancipation impact or influence the memory for those who were relatively young at the time? --MK<br />
<br />
Why did some slaves "stick to (their)masters"? Was it because they were "too soft" as Felix Haywood stated or was it a relic of the oppression they lived with their entire lives? -- R.King<br />
<br />
<br />
On page 271 of Remembering Slavery, the story of Robert Glenn begins. Glenn’s story is interesting because even after he knew he was free, he decided to stay with his master for a year and even considered staying longer. How many freed slaves continued to stay on and live and work for their ex-masters? Why did they decide to continue to work for the people who had enslaved them even though they were now free? - Angie<br />
<br />
It is interesting to note that these accounts seem to be riddles with feelings of "undeserving" and that emancipation had little to no impact on life for slaves. In some accounts (like Felix Haywood's), emancipation is portrayed as overrated and responsible for making life harder for former slaves. Why would these oral histories have such a common tone? Is it possible these accounts were conditioned by the interviewers and ingrained fear?- A. Askins<br />
<br />
== General Questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A theme I have noticed throughout our readings, often in Blight, and especially now in Faust, is that of a lost opportunity. There were seemingly small but important mistakes made in message (reconciliation) and administration (the failure to treat Confederate dead the same as Union dead) that were major factors in the formation of Lost Cause ideology. Is this the case? Or were these kinds of ideas inevitable? -GStan.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=471A3--Week_1_Questions/Comments--Thursday471A3--Week 1 Questions/Comments--Thursday2011-01-16T01:00:27Z<p>Vyale: /* Blight, ''Race and Reunion'', Title page through 5; */</p>
<hr />
<div>== David Thelen, “Memory and American History,” ''Journal of American History'', 75 (March 1989): 1117-29 ==<br />
<br />
'''Memory--Construction or remembering?'''<br />
<br />
Do you agree that it is more important the way a memory is constructed (what influences the narrator, how a person utilizes others' memories/ideas to explain about an event or detail, his or her mood/biases etc.) rather than the accuracy of the memory itself? -avanness<br />
<br />
In David Thelen's piece, he discusses this idea between reconstruction vs. reproduction in terms of memories. How valid are the claims made that memory is in fact a reconstruction rather than a reproduction of past events? Also, how does this play into the validity of a person's memory of an event in history? Should it be trusted, and if so, to what extent? - A. Bratchie<br />
<br />
Do you agree with the statement in the Thelen article on page 1120 that “remembering appears to be far more decisively an affair of construction rather than one of mere reproduction”? Could it be possible to ever have a truly objective view on something such as the American Civil War? Also, did anyone expect the Thelen article to lapse into biology there in the middle? --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
'''Lost Cause and the search for common memories'''<br />
<br />
On page 1123 of David Thelen’s article, he writes that “people together searched for common memories to meet present needs.” Later, on page 1126, he asks the question, “Why did some southern whites energize their resistance to Reconstruction with memories of a Lost Cause?” Did the need for southern whites to stand apart from Reconstruction initiate a common memory of some sort of “Lost Cause” even though perhaps the “cause” was a little bit different for each of them as individuals? If southern whites did not feel so strongly against the emancipation and equality of African Americans would they have all still united under such a memory as the “Lost Cause”? – Angie<br />
<br />
'''What's an historian to do?'''<br />
<br />
Is David Thelen saying that a historian should write several versions of his history, one for each audience he hopes to reach? --Bob King<br />
<br />
<br />
== Blight, ''Race and Reunion'', Title page through 5; ==<br />
<br />
In Blight’s prologue, specifically on page 4, '''he writes that American’s chose romance over reality in their remembrance of the Civil War. It is easy to understand that the South might not have wanted to face the hard reality of their loss, but why [does Blight believe that]the North choose romance as well?''' Was it just as hard for the North to deal with the realities of the end of the War as it was for the South? – Angie<br />
<br />
How have race relations been affected by the reconciliationist ideals of the late nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries? Were relations affected so much that these consequences reach into the modern era?- D. Radtke<br />
<br />
'''Are sentimental remembrances winning over reality?''' -- Bob King<br />
<br />
'''The three overall visions of Civil War memory that have developed: the reconciliationist vision, the white supremacist vision, and the emancipationist vision. We should discuss in detail the nature of these views and how they have developed over time.'''--Nick. J<br />
<br />
Blight is fairly obvious in his opinion that viewing romance over reality as a negative. How big of a detriment is this view to the memory of the war? - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Fahs and Waugh, ''The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture'', 1-4 ==<br />
<br />
<br />
How does Civil War memory allow for the denial of national membership to "others" (as claimed in the introduction to ''The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture'')? - Askins<br />
<br />
'''The introduction to ''The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture'' describes how the memory of the Civil War was often invoked for political purposes. To what extent is remembrance of the war actual cultural nostalgia, as opposed to a political tool?''' -GStan.<br />
<br />
Something that was interesting to me while reading the introduction to ''The Memory of the Civil War in American Culture'' was how one of the articles discusses school textbooks in the North and the South. How common was the Civil War disputed in school textbooks and also, why did the North offer so little opposition to the southern textbooks? Was it political reasons or something else? - A. Bratchie<br />
<br />
Upon reading the introduction of the memory in the Civil War I was puzzled by the statue of Lincoln that was unveiled in Richmond in 2003 brought forth protesters. After reading the sources for this week I have a better understanding for why there would be protesters because the Civil War still plays an important part in people's life's.--Nick J<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Thomas Brown, ''The Public Art of Civil War Commemoration'', 1-14 ==<br />
<br />
'''Why do you think women had such a desire to create commemorative groups, especially in the south, after the Civil War?''' The reading by Thomas Brown said that these groups had wanted to honor those who had died, sponsor mourning ceremonies, and engage in everyday social activities. What would they have inevitably gotten out of engaging in these types of activities? -avanness<br />
<br />
What are the driving forces behind the creation of the Lost Cause- or, more broadly, the creation of a uniquely Southern memory of the Civil War? '''Thomas Brown argues that the aforementioned mode of memory evolved from more than a hope for vindication of the Confederacy. The north, he says, came to admire the South as a "place of respite from the economic and social pressures of life in the north" (page 8). In other words, old enemies were able to reconcile, not over issues of race, but over differences in economy and everyday life. Do you agree with this assertion?''' -D. Radtke<br />
<br />
'''What do you think can be attributed to the nation's increasingly positive view towards the history and memorializing of the Civil War? What leads us as a nation to view something so costly and divisive as necessary for commemoration and reverence? -'''-Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== '''Debate topics:''' ==<br />
<br />
Reconciliation undermining racial equality- Askins<br />
<br />
Northern and Southern views on the history. --Cash<br />
<br />
Is the "lost cause" a lost cause? -- B.King<br />
<br />
== General questions ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
If the Race problem was so deeply ingrained in the reasoning behind the civil war, and both sides believed they were fighting for the right causes, how did the Yankee and Confederate soldiers reconcile their differences while the race problem itself continued to grow bigger and bigger?- AJ L.<br />
<br />
'''What methods of shaping people's memory of the civil war seemed to be most effective?''' The monuments that were erected, the books that told the varying history of the war (printed by both north and south), the politics of the time etc... AJ L.<br />
<br />
'''Regional memories of the war'''<br />
<br />
How does the collective memory of the Civil War from both the northern and southern perspectives influence the "American Memory" and history of the Civil War? --MK Napier <br />
<br />
How different are Western American views of the war compared to states that participated in the conflict? Is the Western view the truly neutral view? Logan T<br />
<br />
Other than the Lost Cause, what might be some reasons for why the South seems to have heavily dominated the memorializing through monuments, books, movies, etc., the Civil War? --MK Napier<br />
<br />
<br />
How did Americans remember the Civil war in the period immediately following the conflict? --B. King <br />
<br />
<br />
'''What is the LC?'''<br />
<br />
Can someone explain the Lost Cause to me? It's exactly how I'm describing myself in trying to understand what it is... --Cash Ibid --B. King<br />
<br />
----The "Lost Cause" as an intellectual movement holds that the institution of slavery was largely a benevolent one and would have eventually died out on its own. Slaves were faithful to their owners. The South did not so much "lose" the War as they were forced to yield to a materially and economically superior foe. I think Blight talks more about it in later chapters. In a sense, the "Lost Cause" is a means of seeking some sort of justification or vindication for their ancestors. If you want to see classic Lost Causers, check out the Sons of Confederate Veterans website.... -D.R.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''Two final important questions going forward'''<br />
<br />
'''Thelen mentions that "The challenge of history is to recover the past and introduce it to the present." However, Fahs and Waugh say that the "Civil War has never receded into the remote past." Does this make it easier or more difficult to study/research how the Civil War was seen in the past versus how we’re remembering it at 150 years later? And (how) does it differ from the researching of events that have been mostly ignored for years?''' –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
'''Are the future commemoration ceremonies of the Civil War’s 150th anniversary going to change our memory of the war by opening up new debates about how the war should be remembered?''' Logan T</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T06:10:38Z<p>Vyale: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
As many people have mentioned, I was shocked by the conditions in the VA Hospital. As terrible as the treatment from the staff at the hospital was, what really surprised me, was that no one ever had any family visit them. Ron's brother makes a lame excuse about it when Ron returns home, but his parents never even try. Long Island is not that far away from Brooklyn. Did the military only allow prostitutes and drug dealers to visit soldiers in hospital? Born on the Fourth of July also provided clear insight into the mind of the American military before and during the early stages of the Vietnam War. When the Marines are talking to the high schoolers, they talk about how the United States has never lost a war and never will. Later, when Ron is watching the news with his father, a news reporter asks an American officer how they are going to fight the Viet Cong and NVA. He responds with disdain, "I think that anything that lives in a cave can be weeded out." These scenes show the superiority and invincibility that many Americans felt. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the state if the veteran hospitals. I was completely shocked by this and wonder how accurate it is. Unfortunately, I'm assuming it's fairly accurate considering all the budget cuts we discussed in class on Tuesday and how few hopsitals there were compared to the actual need. I totally agree with Appel, that was the most striking thing about the film, for me personally. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Oliver Stone effectively portrayed the negative reception that veterans received when they returned to society. Even Ron’s family turned against him. He was treated poorly in the hospital, and did not assimilate back into society very well. There were strong anti-war sentiments. Many civilians said that the soldiers in Vietnam did not know what was going on at home and that they thought they were fighting for a good cause against Communism. The home front was more informed than the soldiers. I liked how Stone actually used the real speeches of Kennedy and Nixon. Stone seemed to ignore racial conflicts and focus more on class and generational conflicts. Also the disabled veterans formed protests against the war, even though some, like Ron, had originally been against protests. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and Megan. Although the issue of African American civil rights was brought up briefly, I though as a whole it was underplayed. While many of the scenes neglected to have any blacks in them (which would have been accurate), the issue itself isn't brought up in many of the conversations or situations that Ron finds himself in with other African American soldiers. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie was made in 1989 so there were many primary sources available via veterans. This shows how deeply embedded the Vietnam War was in the American mind. The M*A*S*H television series had just gone off the air in 1983. The music was overdone, but it showed the culture expectations of what a big movie should be. The public was still expecting orchestral scores with big sweeping music to affect the emotions of the audience. Also, the use of slow-motion was overdone. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Like Shauser stated, it's interesting to note the time lapse between the publishing of the book and the production of the film. By this point, 16 years had passed and new insights into Vietnam could be sought out. I think the gap of time was a good thing for the film to portray Vietnam accurately. If it had been produced immediately after the war (...or conflict), I think many of the mixed feelings the people of the U.S. were feeling may have painted the film in a different light. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
While I'm sure everyone in the class found the film to be disturbing and highly despressing, some critics found it to be too hopeful. One film critic imparticular, Jonathan Rosenbaum said"...the movie's conventional showbiz finale, brimming with false uplift, implies that the traumas of other mutilated and disillusioned Vietnam veterans can easily be overcome if they write books and turn themselves into celebrities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July_(film) I would scared to watch a movie produced by Mr. Rosenbaum. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that "Rumors of War" was very similar to the things we saw in the film. These illusions and the desire to go and fight for the United States is what motivated many of the men to volunteer initially, but it became more than just a war to be won, or in this case loss, when the men returned home and found themselves lost without the war. Ron doesn't know what to do with himself when he returns home and ends up getting into some serious issues with alcoholism. This feeling of confusion or being lost is evident in both the reading and the film. I think they correspond well. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T06:02:13Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
As many people have mentioned, I was shocked by the conditions in the VA Hospital. As terrible as the treatment from the staff at the hospital was, what really surprised me, was that no one ever had any family visit them. Ron's brother makes a lame excuse about it when Ron returns home, but his parents never even try. Long Island is not that far away from Brooklyn. Did the military only allow prostitutes and drug dealers to visit soldiers in hospital? Born on the Fourth of July also provided clear insight into the mind of the American military before and during the early stages of the Vietnam War. When the Marines are talking to the high schoolers, they talk about how the United States has never lost a war and never will. Later, when Ron is watching the news with his father, a news reporter asks an American officer how they are going to fight the Viet Cong and NVA. He responds with disdain, "I think that anything that lives in a cave can be weeded out." These scenes show the superiority and invincibility that many Americans felt. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the state if the veteran hospitals. I was completely shocked by this and wonder how accurate it is. Unfortunately, I'm assuming it's fairly accurate considering all the budget cuts we discussed in class on Tuesday and how few hopsitals there were compared to the actual need. I totally agree with Appel, that was the most striking thing about the film, for me personally. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Oliver Stone effectively portrayed the negative reception that veterans received when they returned to society. Even Ron’s family turned against him. He was treated poorly in the hospital, and did not assimilate back into society very well. There were strong anti-war sentiments. Many civilians said that the soldiers in Vietnam did not know what was going on at home and that they thought they were fighting for a good cause against Communism. The home front was more informed than the soldiers. I liked how Stone actually used the real speeches of Kennedy and Nixon. Stone seemed to ignore racial conflicts and focus more on class and generational conflicts. Also the disabled veterans formed protests against the war, even though some, like Ron, had originally been against protests. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and Megan. Although the issue of African American civil rights was brought up briefly, I though as a whole it was underplayed. While many of the scenes neglected to have any blacks in them (which would have been accurate), the issue itself isn't brought up in many of the conversations or situations that Ron finds himself in with other African American soldiers. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie was made in 1989 so there were many primary sources available via veterans. This shows how deeply embedded the Vietnam War was in the American mind. The M*A*S*H television series had just gone off the air in 1983. The music was overdone, but it showed the culture expectations of what a big movie should be. The public was still expecting orchestral scores with big sweeping music to affect the emotions of the audience. Also, the use of slow-motion was overdone. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Like Shauser stated, it's interesting to note the time lapse between the publishing of the book and the production of the film. By this point, 16 years had passed and new insights into Vietnam could be sought out. I think the gap of time was a good thing for the film to portray Vietnam accurately. If it had been produced immediately after the war (...or conflict), I think many of the mixed feelings the people of the U.S. were feeling may have painted the film in a different light. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T05:55:34Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
As many people have mentioned, I was shocked by the conditions in the VA Hospital. As terrible as the treatment from the staff at the hospital was, what really surprised me, was that no one ever had any family visit them. Ron's brother makes a lame excuse about it when Ron returns home, but his parents never even try. Long Island is not that far away from Brooklyn. Did the military only allow prostitutes and drug dealers to visit soldiers in hospital? Born on the Fourth of July also provided clear insight into the mind of the American military before and during the early stages of the Vietnam War. When the Marines are talking to the high schoolers, they talk about how the United States has never lost a war and never will. Later, when Ron is watching the news with his father, a news reporter asks an American officer how they are going to fight the Viet Cong and NVA. He responds with disdain, "I think that anything that lives in a cave can be weeded out." These scenes show the superiority and invincibility that many Americans felt. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the state if the veteran hospitals. I was completely shocked by this and wonder how accurate it is. Unfortunately, I'm assuming it's fairly accurate considering all the budget cuts we discussed in class on Tuesday and how few hopsitals there were compared to the actual need. I totally agree with Appel, that was the most striking thing about the film, for me personally. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Oliver Stone effectively portrayed the negative reception that veterans received when they returned to society. Even Ron’s family turned against him. He was treated poorly in the hospital, and did not assimilate back into society very well. There were strong anti-war sentiments. Many civilians said that the soldiers in Vietnam did not know what was going on at home and that they thought they were fighting for a good cause against Communism. The home front was more informed than the soldiers. I liked how Stone actually used the real speeches of Kennedy and Nixon. Stone seemed to ignore racial conflicts and focus more on class and generational conflicts. Also the disabled veterans formed protests against the war, even though some, like Ron, had originally been against protests. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and Megan. Although the issue of African American civil rights was brought up briefly, I though as a whole it was underplayed. While many of the scenes neglected to have any blacks in them (which would have been accurate), the issue itself isn't brought up in many of the conversations or situations that Ron finds himself in with other African American soldiers. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie was made in 1989 so there were many primary sources available via veterans. This shows how deeply embedded the Vietnam War was in the American mind. The M*A*S*H television series had just gone off the air in 1983. The music was overdone, but it showed the culture expectations of what a big movie should be. The public was still expecting orchestral scores with big sweeping music to affect the emotions of the audience. Also, the use of slow-motion was overdone. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T05:50:16Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
As many people have mentioned, I was shocked by the conditions in the VA Hospital. As terrible as the treatment from the staff at the hospital was, what really surprised me, was that no one ever had any family visit them. Ron's brother makes a lame excuse about it when Ron returns home, but his parents never even try. Long Island is not that far away from Brooklyn. Did the military only allow prostitutes and drug dealers to visit soldiers in hospital? Born on the Fourth of July also provided clear insight into the mind of the American military before and during the early stages of the Vietnam War. When the Marines are talking to the high schoolers, they talk about how the United States has never lost a war and never will. Later, when Ron is watching the news with his father, a news reporter asks an American officer how they are going to fight the Viet Cong and NVA. He responds with disdain, "I think that anything that lives in a cave can be weeded out." These scenes show the superiority and invincibility that many Americans felt. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the state if the veteran hospitals. I was completely shocked by this and wonder how accurate it is. Unfortunately, I'm assuming it's fairly accurate considering all the budget cuts we discussed in class on Tuesday and how few hopsitals there were compared to the actual need. I totally agree with Appel, that was the most striking thing about the film, for me personally. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
== 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 />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T05:34:16Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
== 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 />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T04:54:29Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
First of all, I really liked this movie because it managed to make me incredibly angry about what was happening, even though I knew that the outcome was positive. I wish we had been able to see every hateful person in the film get what's coming to them. That being said, I respect the filmmakers immensely because they chose not to do that - it's much more realistic that way. I was so angry and frustrated with what I saw in the film, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. Anyway, I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Miriam made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Miriam responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Miriam's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Miriam says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families. In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Right from the beginning, they accurately portrayed how blacks got on the bus: they had to go in through the front to pay their dime and then get off and go to the back to actually on. I thought they were going to pull away right after Whoopi payed her dime. Also, they showed how many white seats were available when the black were standing room only. Also, they showed how there was so many people at the church when MLK was speaking; even after walking all day long, Whoopi had no problem standing outside, where she couldn't even see anything, to be inspired by MLK's words. Also, I thought it was a little strange how her son, who was super excited to go to the rally, had no emotional response, or even physical (i.e. facial expression changes) during the speech. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
One thing I thought was very interesting was that the movie showed how <em>some</em> whites were 1)oblivious to the seriousness of race issues 2) racists because they simply didn't know or 3) were followers to others thinking. Miriam's husband is a prime example of this. At first he doesn't really know/seem to care about the boycott. However as time goes on he becomes a follower to trends and popular thought. Also Miriam her self starts off as a racist by culture. She grew up in a racist environment and so didn't know, yet as times changed she began to form her own opinions (unlike her wimpy husband, man that guy was a wuss). -Isaac<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a very good job a showing how racism wasn't over after the 1900's rolled around. Many of the people in the South maintained the view that blacks were not as good as white and in some fashion, they were less capable as whites. I think people have a tendency to think that racism hasn't been an issue for a long time, because many of us grew up that way, but racism was still rampant in the South less that 60 years ago. I think that film does a good job in showing that the fight for freedom wasn't over after the Civil War. I also liked how they didn't use a lot of hollywood drama, the basic story was enough to keep us all interested. And I also thought it was interesting how Goldberg's character barely had any lines even though she was essentially the main character. I thought that really helped portray the silence they all had to keep. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting. They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
No body casually smokes except for the "bad guy." I mean come on...it was the '60s. Even the Flintstones smoked [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A]. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing this film certainly address is the role of women in the Civil Rights movement. Odessa and Miriam had two of the most active roles in the film, and were directly depicted not only as the films protagonists but also as driving forces (no pun intended) behind the success of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Yet how does this comment on the culutre of 1990s America? Well according to *mumble* Wikipedia *mumble* there was a rise in feminism in the '90s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s] This film certainly shows women in a strong light, especially depicting Miriam standing up to her husband at the end. Odessa is shown also as an equal head of her household as well as the one who keeps everything together. Another striking image is the final one of the maids all standing up and singing to the Citzen's Council, and Miriam husband's inability to save his own wife. In the end the women stood up for themselves and succeeded. Therefore this film comments on the role of women in cultural change and politicals showing their track record of success and help. On a side note, every time Odessa's husband talked all I could hear was Marcel Wallace talking.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachel, I thought it was interesting to see how the writers and directors didn't shy away from the racial slurs. It definitely added to the harshness of the film and was an important choice on the makers of this film. Perhaps people were becoming more aware of the racism that many blacks still suffered during the time and they felt it was important to express the fullness of this. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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)<br />
<br />
Wasn't quite sure where to put this because it was a question I had but it goes with overall success of the film. How often were middle/upper-class white women involved in civil rights actions like Sissy Spacek's character? While I'm sure there were women who supported the Civil Rights I have to wonder how many of them actually put themselves out there (especially in Montgomery) in places like the carpool. While I enjoyed the film a lot and thought it accurately portrayed many things now that I am thinking about it Spacek's character seems to be more of a trope than was perhaps reality of the situation (but I could be wrong).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:26, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T04:49:22Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
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 />
Right from the beginning, they accurately portrayed how blacks got on the bus: they had to go in through the front to pay their dime and then get off and go to the back to actually on. I thought they were going to pull away right after Whoopi payed her dime. Also, they showed how many white seats were available when the black were standing room only. Also, they showed how there was so many people at the church when MLK was speaking; even after walking all day long, Whoopi had no problem standing outside, where she couldn't even see anything, to be inspired by MLK's words. Also, I thought it was a little strange how her son, who was super excited to go to the rally, had no emotional response, or even physical (i.e. facial expression changes) during the speech. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
One thing I thought was very interesting was that the movie showed how <em>some</em> whites were 1)oblivious to the seriousness of race issues 2) racists because they simply didn't know or 3) were followers to others thinking. Miriam's husband is a prime example of this. At first he doesn't really know/seem to care about the boycott. However as time goes on he becomes a follower to trends and popular thought. Also Miriam her self starts off as a racist by culture. She grew up in a racist environment and so didn't know, yet as times changed she began to form her own opinions (unlike her wimpy husband, man that guy was a wuss). -Isaac<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a very good job a showing how racism wasn't over after the 1900's rolled around. Many of the people in the South maintained the view that blacks were not as good as white and in some fashion, they were less capable as whites. I think people have a tendency to think that racism hasn't been an issue for a long time, because many of us grew up that way, but racism was still rampant in the South less that 60 years ago. I think that film does a good job in showing that the fight for freedom wasn't over after the Civil War. I also liked how they didn't use a lot of hollywood drama, the basic story was enough to keep us all interested. And I also thought it was interesting how Goldberg's character barely had any lines even though she was essentially the main character. I thought that really helped portray the silence they all had to keep. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting. They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
No body casually smokes except for the "bad guy." I mean come on...it was the '60s. Even the Flintstones smoked [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A]. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing this film certainly address is the role of women in the Civil Rights movement. Odessa and Miriam had two of the most active roles in the film, and were directly depicted not only as the films protagonists but also as driving forces (no pun intended) behind the success of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Yet how does this comment on the culutre of 1990s America? Well according to *mumble* Wikipedia *mumble* there was a rise in feminism in the '90s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s] This film certainly shows women in a strong light, especially depicting Miriam standing up to her husband at the end. Odessa is shown also as an equal head of her household as well as the one who keeps everything together. Another striking image is the final one of the maids all standing up and singing to the Citzen's Council, and Miriam husband's inability to save his own wife. In the end the women stood up for themselves and succeeded. Therefore this film comments on the role of women in cultural change and politicals showing their track record of success and help. On a side note, every time Odessa's husband talked all I could hear was Marcel Wallace talking.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== 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)<br />
<br />
Wasn't quite sure where to put this because it was a question I had but it goes with overall success of the film. How often were middle/upper-class white women involved in civil rights actions like Sissy Spacek's character? While I'm sure there were women who supported the Civil Rights I have to wonder how many of them actually put themselves out there (especially in Montgomery) in places like the carpool. While I enjoyed the film a lot and thought it accurately portrayed many things now that I am thinking about it Spacek's character seems to be more of a trope than was perhaps reality of the situation (but I could be wrong).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:26, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T04:39:16Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
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 />
Right from the beginning, they accurately portrayed how blacks got on the bus: they had to go in through the front to pay their dime and then get off and go to the back to actually on. I thought they were going to pull away right after Whoopi payed her dime. Also, they showed how many white seats were available when the black were standing room only. Also, they showed how there was so many people at the church when MLK was speaking; even after walking all day long, Whoopi had no problem standing outside, where she couldn't even see anything, to be inspired by MLK's words. Also, I thought it was a little strange how her son, who was super excited to go to the rally, had no emotional response, or even physical (i.e. facial expression changes) during the speech. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
One thing I thought was very interesting was that the movie showed how <em>some</em> whites were 1)oblivious to the seriousness of race issues 2) racists because they simply didn't know or 3) were followers to others thinking. Miriam's husband is a prime example of this. At first he doesn't really know/seem to care about the boycott. However as time goes on he becomes a follower to trends and popular thought. Also Miriam her self starts off as a racist by culture. She grew up in a racist environment and so didn't know, yet as times changed she began to form her own opinions (unlike her wimpy husband, man that guy was a wuss). -Isaac<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a very good job a showing how racism wasn't over after the 1900's rolled around. Many of the people in the South maintained the view that blacks were not as good as white and in some fashion, they were less capable as whites. I think people have a tendency to think that racism hasn't been an issue for a long time, because many of us grew up that way, but racism was still rampant in the South less that 60 years ago. I think that film does a good job in showing that the fight for freedom wasn't over after the Civil War. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting. They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
No body casually smokes except for the "bad guy." I mean come on...it was the '60s. Even the Flintstones smoked [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A]. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing this film certainly address is the role of women in the Civil Rights movement. Odessa and Miriam had two of the most active roles in the film, and were directly depicted not only as the films protagonists but also as driving forces (no pun intended) behind the success of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Yet how does this comment on the culutre of 1990s America? Well according to *mumble* Wikipedia *mumble* there was a rise in feminism in the '90s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s] This film certainly shows women in a strong light, especially depicting Miriam standing up to her husband at the end. Odessa is shown also as an equal head of her household as well as the one who keeps everything together. Another striking image is the final one of the maids all standing up and singing to the Citzen's Council, and Miriam husband's inability to save his own wife. In the end the women stood up for themselves and succeeded. Therefore this film comments on the role of women in cultural change and politicals showing their track record of success and help. On a side note, every time Odessa's husband talked all I could hear was Marcel Wallace talking.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== 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)<br />
<br />
Wasn't quite sure where to put this because it was a question I had but it goes with overall success of the film. How often were middle/upper-class white women involved in civil rights actions like Sissy Spacek's character? While I'm sure there were women who supported the Civil Rights I have to wonder how many of them actually put themselves out there (especially in Montgomery) in places like the carpool. While I enjoyed the film a lot and thought it accurately portrayed many things now that I am thinking about it Spacek's character seems to be more of a trope than was perhaps reality of the situation (but I could be wrong).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:26, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-07T00:42:03Z<p>Vyale: /* Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
If it was made in the 1950s, the movie would not have been as concerned with the economy. In 1946, many people thought the United States could go into another great depression. And I agree, it would have been more happy and exciting that the soldiers returned home. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I agree with the above comments about how the economic situation would not have looked so grim if the film was made in the 1950s. I also feel that the talks about Nuclear war and the Soviets would have been more prevalent because the 1950s was all about stopping Communism and in 1949 the USSR tested their first Nuclear Weapon and the fears that the test caused, I feel, would have been hinted at more.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with all the comments above that if the movie was made in the 1950's there would have been a sense that prosperity would happen. They might have showed some of the troubles, but the uncertainty wouldn't be there. There would be an expectation that times are sure to get better. I also agree with Isaac where the filmmakers most likely wouldn't have included anyone who doubted America's involvement in WWII. Especially after the Truman Doctrine, where it was said that it was America's job to fight Communist, or contain it rather. There would have been more Patriotism and support for America. - Jenn<br />
<br />
To go along with the previous comments, I think the film could have gone one of two ways. Like the movies before and during the war, the movie would have been very pro-American. During the 1950s, the U.S. was a world superpower, experiencing an economic boom, as well as changing ideals that perpetuated the image of the American dream. The movie would have looked more positively on war and family life. OR, the movie could taken a more critical look at the effects of war. During the 1950s, the U.S. was in the midst of the Cold War and on the brink of enter into another war in Korea. --Erin L. <br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can't wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn't until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it's clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The title has many different meanings to the audience and the characters within the movie. When I told most people that I was going to watch a movie called "The Best Years of Our Lives" they thought I was talking about a really happy movie. The three veterans thought that the best years of their lives were after the war, but then they realized that it was hard to readjust into civilian life. I think the only person who says "The Best Years of Our Lives" is Marie (Fred's wife).I am a little unsure what she meant, but I think the best years for her were when Frank was gone away at war. It seemed like she was happy bragging to her friends that she has a husband fighting in the war, but she did not want to face realities of him being a civilian when he came home. At some points of the movie, I think that maybe the best years were before the war. Maybe they did not understand how much war would change them forever, and they wished it never happened. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The title "The Best Years of our lives" is definitely an ironic movie title. The three men come home and they talk about their best years either being during the war or before the war when everything sseemed to be easier. Each character is dreading the return to civilization in their own way and each has different circumstances to react to when they come back. They struggle throughout the movie to block out memories of the war, and in Homer's case, he has to physically deal with the war every day. The title would be straightforward if it was "The Worst Years of our Lives," but it instead represents the irony of returning from war in not always pleasant circumstances. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I took the title to mean that they had given up the best years of their lives during the war, especially for Al and Homer. Al missed 4 years of Peggy and his son's childhood, that he will never be able to get back. He returns home and no longer recognizes his children. He also has a hard time readjusting to his wife, but they are able to fall in love all over again. Homer loses both of his hands during the war and almost misses out a girl who truly loves him. If he had not gone to war he would have had four years with her, minus the physical and psychological scars. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The movie title is ironic because, although those years should have been the best, in fact they were some of the hardest ever faced by these veterans and their families. The veterans had just been thrown into battle, forced to adjust to the harsh realities of war and just as suddenly they were thrown out of battle back into civilian life. Forever changed by their experiences in war, they were expected to go back to their old lives. Their families suffered just as equally, having to adjust to not only losing a family member, but also to the changes that the war had on the homefront. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I see the movie title as being ironic for a few different reasons. To begin with, once you realize that this film isn't a "happy go-lucky" film, you begin to wonder what time was "the best years of their lives"? Could they be talking about the time they spent in the war? After all, it was good pay for Fred, Homer still had his hands, and Al lost a bunch of weight! Or maybe they are talking about the time in which the film is taking place. All of them seem optimistic about returning to their families and homes. Besides it must have been the best feeling to get home and away from war. Perhaps they are talking about the future. There is some unsteadiness discussed in the beginning of the movie, but by the end, everyone seems to be where they want to be and the future is looking pretty bright. This title makes complete sense, but not necessarily what about. Everything has a good and a bad about it, so the "best years" is very relative. Each person can decide what years they are talking about. Particularly since the people that watched this film where going through the same thing and they all had an opionion about what the best years were, the wartime, the present, or the future. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn about the domestic stereotypes (Millie and Peggy), but at least they weren't sickly sweet, which could have been easy to do. Millie didn't exactly seem cheery all the time, nor did she seem resentful for having to carrying out her domestic responsibilities. She played her part, but she didn't pretend that she absolutely loved doing it. Peggy seemed a little too chirpy to be realistic initially, but she had a darker side to her, too. Not many women in movies from the 1940s seriously declare that they're going to break up a marriage. She seemed fairly independent, not just a doting daughter and sister. I didn't like Marie, but I liked that she was not a domestic goddess. She was pissed that she had to quit her job when Fred came home, and she was kind of slutty. A good role model? No. An annoying character? Yes. But it was a little refreshing to see someone like Marie in a movie from 1946, especially when everyone else is more or less noble. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree that Peggy and Al's wife were strong characters. I think if this was made in the 1950s, their characters would not have been as strong because of the shift of working roles. Maybe in 1946 most women still had their jobs that they had during the war. But it probably gradually shifted to the men taking back their jobs. Peggy and Al's wife are my favorite characters. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I believe that the women in the movie gave the main characters a basis with which to show how hard it was for them to adjust back to civilian life. The women represented the veterans' former lives and they served as a comparison to show how much the main characters had been changed by their experiences in war. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Not only did the women represent the domestic life, I think the women in the movie also represented optimism. The men were quite disillusioned when they returned home and I think the women were the ones always looking to the future. They were the ones encouraging the men to move on from the war and get their lives back together. For example, Peggy encouraged Fred that he could still fulfill his dreams, even when his life seemed impossible. The women were the ones who kept the postwar dreams of the 3 veterans alive. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perseverance the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think that the ending of the film leaves the viewer with a mostly optimistic view of a post-WWII world. The marriage of Homer and Wilma really signified that for me, it showed that people were beginning to overcome the hardships that the war had caused, with Wilma telling Homer that no matter what she still loved him. The same with Peggy and Fred, it seemed that they were going to try and take the next steps in a relationship. And with Al and Milly being able to rekindle their romance and support of each other. All three of the relationships symbolized getting past the war and trying to live normal lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think the movie has both elements of pessimism and optimism represented. For most of the movie, pessimism is prevalent in each character's lives. Homer has to deal with having no arms and a family that struggles to deal with this concept, Al seems to have the perfect life at home but it is this perfection he struggles with, and Fred struggles to find a proper family. Everyone deals with pessimism but in the end, I think the movie is overall optimistic. Homer gets married, Fred gets a divorce from his superficial wife and finds Al's daughter and Al realizes what he had in his family. I think the movie shows that no matter how the atrocities of war may affect a soldier, they can adapt again in society with a good family and positive influences around them. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I also have to agree that the movie shows elements of both optimism and pessimism. It shows that although war has a strong impact upon the lives of people, with time, people do adjust and can heal. However, at the same time the movie looks critically at war by questioning the motivations behind the use of the atomic bomb. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree that I see both the optimistic and pessimistic sides of the movie. Many times, people in the movie refer to the fact that there will be a depression since the war had just ended. Also, Fred seemed to become more and more pessimistic throughout the movie when he began working in a job he hated, or when his marriage fell apart. Fred's life turned optimistic though at the end when him and Peggy got together. I thought it was interesting how the 3 veterans were so excited and seemingly optimistic when they were on their flight home. Once they arrived at their homes, their futures seemed bleak, and pessimism set it, asking themselves the question, "what if." In the end, the movie brought a sense of optimism but it definitely fluctuated throughout the movie. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Overall, I believe it has the subtle hints of being optimistic. They accurately discussed the issues of umemployment and fewer jobs as well as problems with all the soldiers returning and looking for help from the government. But despite all that, they don't dwell on this issues and I think that is what makes it an optimistic film. The film identified with the concerns of the present day, but moved on perhaps in the hopes that the viewers would do the same? The wedding at the end (although cheesy) was the epitome of optimism, but mostly the continued relationship of the three men really expressed the positive side of the future. The three were there for each other and it expressed the bond that military men had and how it could help pull them through the tough times. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think each of the veterans would find a way to make their own mark in life, to find what makes them happy. I feel like Homer's marriage might be complicated, but since they love each other they will most likely pull through. As for Al and his wife, like Anna, I also had the sense that Al was becoming an alcoholic towards the end. I was wondering if it was related to all the stress he had between his job and Peggy's sort-of affair with Fred. As for Fred, he will have a difficult time in life. I can see it that if he and Peggy do end up together she will have a job to help support him, starting a non-traditional family for that time period. Over all though I think that there will be struggles for everyone of them. Because the future is uncertain, they don't know that the Era of Prosperity is just around the corner. - Jenn</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-07T00:32:32Z<p>Vyale: /* How is the movie title subtly ironic? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
If it was made in the 1950s, the movie would not have been as concerned with the economy. In 1946, many people thought the United States could go into another great depression. And I agree, it would have been more happy and exciting that the soldiers returned home. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I agree with the above comments about how the economic situation would not have looked so grim if the film was made in the 1950s. I also feel that the talks about Nuclear war and the Soviets would have been more prevalent because the 1950s was all about stopping Communism and in 1949 the USSR tested their first Nuclear Weapon and the fears that the test caused, I feel, would have been hinted at more.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with all the comments above that if the movie was made in the 1950's there would have been a sense that prosperity would happen. They might have showed some of the troubles, but the uncertainty wouldn't be there. There would be an expectation that times are sure to get better. I also agree with Isaac where the filmmakers most likely wouldn't have included anyone who doubted America's involvement in WWII. Especially after the Truman Doctrine, where it was said that it was America's job to fight Communist, or contain it rather. There would have been more Patriotism and support for America. - Jenn<br />
<br />
To go along with the previous comments, I think the film could have gone one of two ways. Like the movies before and during the war, the movie would have been very pro-American. During the 1950s, the U.S. was a world superpower, experiencing an economic boom, as well as changing ideals that perpetuated the image of the American dream. The movie would have looked more positively on war and family life. OR, the movie could taken a more critical look at the effects of war. During the 1950s, the U.S. was in the midst of the Cold War and on the brink of enter into another war in Korea. --Erin L. <br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can't wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn't until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it's clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The title has many different meanings to the audience and the characters within the movie. When I told most people that I was going to watch a movie called "The Best Years of Our Lives" they thought I was talking about a really happy movie. The three veterans thought that the best years of their lives were after the war, but then they realized that it was hard to readjust into civilian life. I think the only person who says "The Best Years of Our Lives" is Marie (Fred's wife).I am a little unsure what she meant, but I think the best years for her were when Frank was gone away at war. It seemed like she was happy bragging to her friends that she has a husband fighting in the war, but she did not want to face realities of him being a civilian when he came home. At some points of the movie, I think that maybe the best years were before the war. Maybe they did not understand how much war would change them forever, and they wished it never happened. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The title "The Best Years of our lives" is definitely an ironic movie title. The three men come home and they talk about their best years either being during the war or before the war when everything sseemed to be easier. Each character is dreading the return to civilization in their own way and each has different circumstances to react to when they come back. They struggle throughout the movie to block out memories of the war, and in Homer's case, he has to physically deal with the war every day. The title would be straightforward if it was "The Worst Years of our Lives," but it instead represents the irony of returning from war in not always pleasant circumstances. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I took the title to mean that they had given up the best years of their lives during the war, especially for Al and Homer. Al missed 4 years of Peggy and his son's childhood, that he will never be able to get back. He returns home and no longer recognizes his children. He also has a hard time readjusting to his wife, but they are able to fall in love all over again. Homer loses both of his hands during the war and almost misses out a girl who truly loves him. If he had not gone to war he would have had four years with her, minus the physical and psychological scars. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The movie title is ironic because, although those years should have been the best, in fact they were some of the hardest ever faced by these veterans and their families. The veterans had just been thrown into battle, forced to adjust to the harsh realities of war and just as suddenly they were thrown out of battle back into civilian life. Forever changed by their experiences in war, they were expected to go back to their old lives. Their families suffered just as equally, having to adjust to not only losing a family member, but also to the changes that the war had on the homefront. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I see the movie title as being ironic for a few different reasons. To begin with, once you realize that this film isn't a "happy go-lucky" film, you begin to wonder what time was "the best years of their lives"? Could they be talking about the time they spent in the war? After all, it was good pay for Fred, Homer still had his hands, and Al lost a bunch of weight! Or maybe they are talking about the time in which the film is taking place. All of them seem optimistic about returning to their families and homes. Besides it must have been the best feeling to get home and away from war. Perhaps they are talking about the future. There is some unsteadiness discussed in the beginning of the movie, but by the end, everyone seems to be where they want to be and the future is looking pretty bright. This title makes complete sense, but not necessarily what about. Everything has a good and a bad about it, so the "best years" is very relative. Each person can decide what years they are talking about. Particularly since the people that watched this film where going through the same thing and they all had an opionion about what the best years were, the wartime, the present, or the future. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn about the domestic stereotypes (Millie and Peggy), but at least they weren't sickly sweet, which could have been easy to do. Millie didn't exactly seem cheery all the time, nor did she seem resentful for having to carrying out her domestic responsibilities. She played her part, but she didn't pretend that she absolutely loved doing it. Peggy seemed a little too chirpy to be realistic initially, but she had a darker side to her, too. Not many women in movies from the 1940s seriously declare that they're going to break up a marriage. She seemed fairly independent, not just a doting daughter and sister. I didn't like Marie, but I liked that she was not a domestic goddess. She was pissed that she had to quit her job when Fred came home, and she was kind of slutty. A good role model? No. An annoying character? Yes. But it was a little refreshing to see someone like Marie in a movie from 1946, especially when everyone else is more or less noble. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree that Peggy and Al's wife were strong characters. I think if this was made in the 1950s, their characters would not have been as strong because of the shift of working roles. Maybe in 1946 most women still had their jobs that they had during the war. But it probably gradually shifted to the men taking back their jobs. Peggy and Al's wife are my favorite characters. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I believe that the women in the movie gave the main characters a basis with which to show how hard it was for them to adjust back to civilian life. The women represented the veterans' former lives and they served as a comparison to show how much the main characters had been changed by their experiences in war. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Not only did the women represent the domestic life, I think the women in the movie also represented optimism. The men were quite disillusioned when they returned home and I think the women were the ones always looking to the future. They were the ones encouraging the men to move on from the war and get their lives back together. For example, Peggy encouraged Fred that he could still fulfill his dreams, even when his life seemed impossible. The women were the ones who kept the postwar dreams of the 3 veterans alive. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perseverance the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think that the ending of the film leaves the viewer with a mostly optimistic view of a post-WWII world. The marriage of Homer and Wilma really signified that for me, it showed that people were beginning to overcome the hardships that the war had caused, with Wilma telling Homer that no matter what she still loved him. The same with Peggy and Fred, it seemed that they were going to try and take the next steps in a relationship. And with Al and Milly being able to rekindle their romance and support of each other. All three of the relationships symbolized getting past the war and trying to live normal lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think the movie has both elements of pessimism and optimism represented. For most of the movie, pessimism is prevalent in each character's lives. Homer has to deal with having no arms and a family that struggles to deal with this concept, Al seems to have the perfect life at home but it is this perfection he struggles with, and Fred struggles to find a proper family. Everyone deals with pessimism but in the end, I think the movie is overall optimistic. Homer gets married, Fred gets a divorce from his superficial wife and finds Al's daughter and Al realizes what he had in his family. I think the movie shows that no matter how the atrocities of war may affect a soldier, they can adapt again in society with a good family and positive influences around them. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I also have to agree that the movie shows elements of both optimism and pessimism. It shows that although war has a strong impact upon the lives of people, with time, people do adjust and can heal. However, at the same time the movie looks critically at war by questioning the motivations behind the use of the atomic bomb. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree that I see both the optimistic and pessimistic sides of the movie. Many times, people in the movie refer to the fact that there will be a depression since the war had just ended. Also, Fred seemed to become more and more pessimistic throughout the movie when he began working in a job he hated, or when his marriage fell apart. Fred's life turned optimistic though at the end when him and Peggy got together. I thought it was interesting how the 3 veterans were so excited and seemingly optimistic when they were on their flight home. Once they arrived at their homes, their futures seemed bleak, and pessimism set it, asking themselves the question, "what if." In the end, the movie brought a sense of optimism but it definitely fluctuated throughout the movie. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think each of the veterans would find a way to make their own mark in life, to find what makes them happy. I feel like Homer's marriage might be complicated, but since they love each other they will most likely pull through. As for Al and his wife, like Anna, I also had the sense that Al was becoming an alcoholic towards the end. I was wondering if it was related to all the stress he had between his job and Peggy's sort-of affair with Fred. As for Fred, he will have a difficult time in life. I can see it that if he and Peggy do end up together she will have a job to help support him, starting a non-traditional family for that time period. Over all though I think that there will be struggles for everyone of them. Because the future is uncertain, they don't know that the Era of Prosperity is just around the corner. - Jenn</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T06:16:37Z<p>Vyale: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe (aka John Locke's kidney-stealing father on "Lost") was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. He captured the utter lack of sympathy that it seems those men had for the miners. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about trusting Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively at the beginning of the film - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was perfectly executed in the scene where he says "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper (Joe Kenehan) is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. His understated magnetism makes any Average Joe into the most interesting character onscreen. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film. And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Just another film about the underdog magically showing up and making wrong into right and bad into good. The idea of the American fight for rights always seems to be headed by a mild natured, good mannered gentleman. Another example, I think, of why people were unsettled with the portrayal of Shaw in Glory because he just didn't fit our standard American hero. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job in reflecting the personal relationships the miners and the community had with religion. Like Jenn stated, many of the letters both openly talk about religion as well as just reference to it in subtle ways. In the film, the enthusiasm the community has at the church (even if it's not that believeable) expressed the importance of it in their lives. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T06:10:48Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe (aka John Locke's kidney-stealing father on "Lost") was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. He captured the utter lack of sympathy that it seems those men had for the miners. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about trusting Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively at the beginning of the film - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was perfectly executed in the scene where he says "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper (Joe Kenehan) is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. His understated magnetism makes any Average Joe into the most interesting character onscreen. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film. And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Just another film about the underdog magically showing up and making wrong into right and bad into good. The idea of the American fight for rights always seems to be headed by a mild natured, good mannered gentleman. Another example, I think, of why people were unsettled with the portrayal of Shaw in Glory because he just didn't fit our standard American hero. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T06:04:15Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. That guy always plays creeps. I wish someone had blown him away when he was on "Lost" as Locke's kidney-stealing father. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film. And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T05:55:36Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. That guy always plays creeps. I wish someone had blown him away when he was on "Lost" as Locke's kidney-stealing father. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T06:13:10Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earp brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
To go along with Meagan's comment, at the beginning of the movie the barber also gives examples of a variety of jobs that were typically held by people in the west, such as mining and prospecting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the film accurately portrayed the general setting of the west during it's earliest settling period. A town in the middle of nowhere, full of people both looking for a new start (Doc) and others looking for a place to escape the law (all the outlaws of the town). The set up of the town and the activities going on in and around it all seemed fairly accurate. There's cattle ranching, mining, prospecting, and lots of other aspects of the growing west represented in the film. They even threw in the sterotypical idea of a drunken Native American running a muck in the town. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will have some epic romance. Instead, they just awkwardly talk to each other and dance. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the chef with the French accent. Tombstone has high culinary standards. - Celia<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The introduction of the Earp brothers in the beginning of the movie was highly historically inaccurate. The brothers' arrival in Tombstone did not occur because they were driving cattle to California. Wyatt actually had hoped to start a stage line. Also, as a side note, Wyatt was actually younger than James in real life. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
One of the big historical inaccuracies was that in the movie, the year was 1882. The shooting at the OK Corral actually happened in October of 1881. Also, James Earp was not killed by the Clantons, but rather lived a long time after the events in the film. Doc Holliday was not in fact killed in the shooting. He died of tuberculosis about six years after the shooting--with his TB being the reason he came out west in the first place. And finally, the Tombstone in the movie was said to be in the Northern Arizona/Utah area but in actuality, was in Southern Arizona. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
The feud between the Clantons and the Earps appears to be only a few days long in the film. While I know it's oftentimes necessary to compress the timeline in a film, the arguments between the two families were extended over a long period of time. They also completely disregarded the Republican and Democratic political factions that in reality caused much of the tension, instead substituting cattle ranching as the catalyst for the showdown. --Melissa<br />
<br />
Um where did Clementine come from? And How did she travel without some kind of escort all the way from Boston? And to continue on with what people have said before, Wyatt met Earp before Tombstone. However in respect to the town, I feel like I have seen it somewhere before. In an Amusement Park. In the "Wild West" theme section. The part where you can go on the Railroad ride. Yup... there are some definite stereotypes in work there... - Jenn<br />
<br />
While there are lots of aspects of the west brought up in this film, I'd say most of them are portrayed in the most sterotypical way. Rather than make things a bit more accurate, I believe they changed it for hollywood purposes, the most influencial purpose of course. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
@afrisk, I was considering how the film seemed to give women a really weak role dependent on men. Not only did they not have any authority, but they lacked even the power to do anything on their own. The film only focuses on two women, even though we do see others, but both of them hardly look like women that can deal with hardships, which seems unlikely.-Bakhtinjali<br />
<br />
One of the documents, Helen Stuart, talks about a husband's death. The thing that struck me about this reading was that she kept mentioning the evidence for it was all circumstantial. This kind of ties in closely with the movie where Wyatt didn't really know who killed his brother, and he only tied it together through the necklace. I guess it shows that in the West there really was no order, and people barely had an idea what was going on. The rule of Gun was in fact the Law. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T06:03:43Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earp brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
To go along with Meagan's comment, at the beginning of the movie the barber also gives examples of a variety of jobs that were typically held by people in the west, such as mining and prospecting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the film accurately portrayed the general setting of the west during it's earliest settling period. A town in the middle of nowhere, full of people both looking for a new start (Doc) and others looking for a place to escape the law (all the outlaws of the town). The set up of the town and the activities going on in and around it all seemed fairly accurate. There's cattle ranching, mining, prospecting, and lots of other aspects of the growing west represented in the film. They even threw in the sterotypical idea of a drunken Native American running a muck in the town. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will have some epic romance. Instead, they just awkwardly talk to each other and dance. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the chef with the French accent. Tombstone has high culinary standards. - Celia<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The introduction of the Earp brothers in the beginning of the movie was highly historically inaccurate. The brothers' arrival in Tombstone did not occur because they were driving cattle to California. Wyatt actually had hoped to start a stage line. Also, as a side note, Wyatt was actually younger than James in real life. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
One of the big historical inaccuracies was that in the movie, the year was 1882. The shooting at the OK Corral actually happened in October of 1881. Also, James Earp was not killed by the Clantons, but rather lived a long time after the events in the film. Doc Holliday was not in fact killed in the shooting. He died of tuberculosis about six years after the shooting--with his TB being the reason he came out west in the first place. And finally, the Tombstone in the movie was said to be in the Northern Arizona/Utah area but in actuality, was in Southern Arizona. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
The feud between the Clantons and the Earps appears to be only a few days long in the film. While I know it's oftentimes necessary to compress the timeline in a film, the arguments between the two families were extended over a long period of time. They also completely disregarded the Republican and Democratic political factions that in reality caused much of the tension, instead substituting cattle ranching as the catalyst for the showdown. --Melissa<br />
<br />
Um where did Clementine come from? And How did she travel without some kind of escort all the way from Boston? And to continue on with what people have said before, Wyatt met Earp before Tombstone. However in respect to the town, I feel like I have seen it somewhere before. In an Amusement Park. In the "Wild West" theme section. The part where you can go on the Railroad ride. Yup... there are some definite stereotypes in work there... - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
@afrisk, I was considering how the film seemed to give women a really weak role dependent on men. Not only did they not have any authority, but they lacked even the power to do anything on their own. The film only focuses on two women, even though we do see others, but both of them hardly look like women that can deal with hardships, which seems unlikely.-Bakhtinjali<br />
<br />
One of the documents, Helen Stuart, talks about a husband's death. The thing that struck me about this reading was that she kept mentioning the evidence for it was all circumstantial. This kind of ties in closely with the movie where Wyatt didn't really know who killed his brother, and he only tied it together through the necklace. I guess it shows that in the West there really was no order, and people barely had an idea what was going on. The rule of Gun was in fact the Law. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T06:02:01Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earp brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
To go along with Meagan's comment, at the beginning of the movie the barber also gives examples of a variety of jobs that were typically held by people in the west, such as mining and prospecting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the film accurately portrayed the general setting of the west during it's earliest settling period. A town in the middle of nowhere, full of people both looking for a new start (Doc) and others looking for a place to escape the law (all the outlaws of the town). The set up of the town and the activities going on in and around it all seemed fairly accurate. There's cattle ranching, mining, prospecting, and lots of other aspects of the growing west represented in the film. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will have some epic romance. Instead, they just awkwardly talk to each other and dance. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the chef with the French accent. Tombstone has high culinary standards. - Celia<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The introduction of the Earp brothers in the beginning of the movie was highly historically inaccurate. The brothers' arrival in Tombstone did not occur because they were driving cattle to California. Wyatt actually had hoped to start a stage line. Also, as a side note, Wyatt was actually younger than James in real life. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
One of the big historical inaccuracies was that in the movie, the year was 1882. The shooting at the OK Corral actually happened in October of 1881. Also, James Earp was not killed by the Clantons, but rather lived a long time after the events in the film. Doc Holliday was not in fact killed in the shooting. He died of tuberculosis about six years after the shooting--with his TB being the reason he came out west in the first place. And finally, the Tombstone in the movie was said to be in the Northern Arizona/Utah area but in actuality, was in Southern Arizona. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
The feud between the Clantons and the Earps appears to be only a few days long in the film. While I know it's oftentimes necessary to compress the timeline in a film, the arguments between the two families were extended over a long period of time. They also completely disregarded the Republican and Democratic political factions that in reality caused much of the tension, instead substituting cattle ranching as the catalyst for the showdown. --Melissa<br />
<br />
Um where did Clementine come from? And How did she travel without some kind of escort all the way from Boston? And to continue on with what people have said before, Wyatt met Earp before Tombstone. However in respect to the town, I feel like I have seen it somewhere before. In an Amusement Park. In the "Wild West" theme section. The part where you can go on the Railroad ride. Yup... there are some definite stereotypes in work there... - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
@afrisk, I was considering how the film seemed to give women a really weak role dependent on men. Not only did they not have any authority, but they lacked even the power to do anything on their own. The film only focuses on two women, even though we do see others, but both of them hardly look like women that can deal with hardships, which seems unlikely.-Bakhtinjali<br />
<br />
One of the documents, Helen Stuart, talks about a husband's death. The thing that struck me about this reading was that she kept mentioning the evidence for it was all circumstantial. This kind of ties in closely with the movie where Wyatt didn't really know who killed his brother, and he only tied it together through the necklace. I guess it shows that in the West there really was no order, and people barely had an idea what was going on. The rule of Gun was in fact the Law. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T05:20:36Z<p>Vyale: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on. (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
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 />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women. Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. 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 />
I agree with Mike's point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn't even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading "Letters from Slaves" and discussing in class, I don't think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T05:17:08Z<p>Vyale: /* Questions asked in class */</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 />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on. (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
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 />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women. Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. 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.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T05:10:15Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on. (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
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 />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women. Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T05:05:05Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on. (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
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 />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top. In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general... - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T04:57:02Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant. Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation. This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on. (I just realized that may seem like I sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed. Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South. When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
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 />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men. We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think the portrayal of the young girl who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
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 />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag. I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners. Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality. It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from and immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of. The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:41:09Z<p>Vyale: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. - Celia<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? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<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 />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<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.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:40:29Z<p>Vyale: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. - Celia<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? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- 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 />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<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.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film make Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he fines himself in. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:36:16Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
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? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- 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 />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:34:49Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</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 />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:28:32Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:27:48Z<p>Vyale: /* 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. 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 />
== 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. - 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 />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:25:59Z<p>Vyale: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
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 />
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. - 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 />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:19:23Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:45:22Z<p>Vyale: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think one of the aspects that the movie did well in conveying was the "disconnectedness" of the war. First Benjamin is against the war, then for it, then against it, then for it again. Some are fighting for freedom, others for revenge. Some colonist are for the British while France is sending over help for the colonist. The movie really expressed the confusion of the whole war and definitely made it clear that it wasn't clear at all. It also did a good job with the attempts made by the British to break down the colonist which backfired on them. Overall, I think it did a good job getting the emotion of the war across. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I remember in class discussing the different regions that were primarily Patriots, or Loyalist, or neutrals and if I remember correctly, there was a section of the Carolinas that was loyalist. This section was primarily yeomen that were against the rich plantation owners in the rest of the region. If that is all correct, then it struck me as odd that the dirty, poor, yeomen in the tavern would have been on such a friendly basis with Benjamin (him being a weathly plantation owner who just happens to be a humanitarian as well). I suppose it was just to add to the nobleness of Benjamin's character. Also, the tomahawk that he uses so gruesomely throughout the movie looked like it was actually a pipe. Tomahawks were often works of art and made into things like pipes. If that was so, then the shaft would have been hollow and useless for the beatings that Benjamin deals out. I noticed too that the characters in this movie also use their guns for beating people, just like in The Last of the Mohicans. Again, seems unlikely that they would have risked the integrity of the gun, but it certainly is entertaining! Oh and one last thing, during Anne's speech in the church, she calls them Patriots instead of Whigs which I thought was interesting. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
What an image to portray to the rest of the world regarding the true American patriot. The imagery that is left in the audiences mind about what it means to be American and how we were established was a big factor in the movie. Perhaps people were feeling like there was a lack of American identity and this certainly gave them something attractive to grasp and I agree with Deborah about the little man pushing through to victory. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," Brownfield's letter described how cruel Tarleton's men were toward their prisoners. The treatment of American prisoners at Waxhaws later provided the justification for the treatment of British prisoners at King's Mountain. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
We spoke in class about the representation of the Loyalist in the film and going into it, I expected very little. While I know they played a fairly large role in the war, I think they did a halfway decent job of expressing that there were, indeed, colonist that sided with England and offered help to them during the war. While I think they could have sacraficed some of Mel Gibson's bloody beatings for more action by the Loyalist, I appreciate that the movie made some attempt to recognize the Loyalists. After all, it wouldn't have surprised me if they left them out completely and acted as if every colonist was whole-hearted patriotic to the liberation from the English crown. - Victoria Y.</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:39:13Z<p>Vyale: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think one of the aspects that the movie did well in conveying was the "disconnectedness" of the war. First Benjamin is against the war, then for it, then against it, then for it again. Some are fighting for freedom, others for revenge. Some colonist are for the British while France is sending over help for the colonist. The movie really expressed the confusion of the whole war and definitely made it clear that it wasn't clear at all. It also did a good job with the attempts made by the British to break down the colonist which backfired on them. Overall, I think it did a good job getting the emotion of the war across. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I remember in class discussing the different regions that were primarily Patriots, or Loyalist, or neutrals and if I remember correctly, there was a section of the Carolinas that was loyalist. This section was primarily yeomen that were against the rich plantation owners in the rest of the region. If that is all correct, then it struck me as odd that the dirty, poor, yeomen in the tavern would have been on such a friendly basis with Benjamin (him being a weathly plantation owner who just happens to be a humanitarian as well). I suppose it was just to add to the nobleness of Benjamin's character. Also, the tomahawk that he uses so gruesomely throughout the movie looked like it was actually a pipe. Tomahawks were often works of art and made into things like pipes. If that was so, then the shaft would have been hollow and useless for the beatings that Benjamin deals out. I noticed too that the characters in this movie also use their guns for beating people, just like in The Last of the Mohicans. Again, seems unlikely that they would have risked the integrity of the gun, but it certainly is entertaining! Oh and one last thing, during Anne's speech in the church, she calls them Patriots instead of Whigs which I thought was interesting. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
What an image to portray to the rest of the world regarding the true American patriot. The imagery that is left in the audiences mind about what it means to be American and how we were established was a big factor in the movie. Perhaps people were feeling like there was a lack of American identity and this certainly gave them something attractive to grasp and I agree with Deborah about the little man pushing through to victory. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," Brownfield's letter described how cruel Tarleton's men were toward their prisoners. The treatment of American prisoners at Waxhaws later provided the justification for the treatment of British prisoners at King's Mountain. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:33:36Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think one of the aspects that the movie did well in conveying was the "disconnectedness" of the war. First Benjamin is against the war, then for it, then against it, then for it again. Some are fighting for freedom, others for revenge. Some colonist are for the British while France is sending over help for the colonist. The movie really expressed the confusion of the whole war and definitely made it clear that it wasn't clear at all. It also did a good job with the attempts made by the British to break down the colonist which backfired on them. Overall, I think it did a good job getting the emotion of the war across. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I remember in class discussing the different regions that were primarily Patriots, or Loyalist, or neutrals and if I remember correctly, there was a section of the Carolinas that was loyalist. This section was primarily yeomen that were against the rich plantation owners in the rest of the region. If that is all correct, then it struck me as odd that the dirty, poor, yeomen in the tavern would have been on such a friendly basis with Benjamin (him being a weathly plantation owner who just happens to be a humanitarian as well). I suppose it was just to add to the nobleness of Benjamin's character. Also, the tomahawk that he uses so gruesomely throughout the movie looked like it was actually a pipe. Tomahawks were often works of art and made into things like pipes. If that was so, then the shaft would have been hollow and useless for the beatings that Benjamin deals out. I noticed too that the characters in this movie also use their guns for beating people, just like in The Last of the Mohicans. Again, seems unlikely that they would have risked the integrity of the gun, but it certainly is entertaining! Oh and one last thing, during Anne's speech in the church, she calls them Patriots instead of Whigs which I thought was interesting. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:17:56Z<p>Vyale: /* 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 />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think one of the aspects that the movie did well in conveying was the "disconnectedness" of the war. First Benjamin is against the war, then for it, then against it, then for it again. Some are fighting for freedom, others for revenge. Some colonist are for the British while France is sending over help for the colonist. The movie really expressed the confusion of the whole war and definitely made it clear that it wasn't clear at all. It also did a good job with the attempts made by the British to break down the colonist which backfired on them. Overall, I think it did a good job getting the emotion of the war across. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Vyalehttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T10:29:28Z<p>Vyale: /* Questions asked in class */</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 />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: '''The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language.''' Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when '''Eleazar Wheelocks' school''' comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. '''The characters were complex'''---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. '''Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history.''' I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with both Deborah's and Celia's points. Magua did have distinct reasons and motivations for the way he acted. I think that his extremeness was a bit overwhelming at times, but I suppose that was the point. That '''sense of deep hatred and anger was portrayed by all the characters involved''', especially the British. And it was developed in such a way that you could physically see the consequences (a la Alice jumping off the cliff). -- Kelly<br />
<br />
<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 />
<br />
<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 />
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 />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also '''depicted the generosity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done.''' The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier''' that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. '''The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes.''' It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
There's a scene in the fort that I really appreciated. It shows '''Native American children singing in Latin (I'm fairly sure they're singing some setting of the Catholic mass), so they've obviously been converted'''. I just thought that was a great little touch on the director's part. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to '''offer gifts'''. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! '''One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers'''. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a '''good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans''', like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The movie definitely touched on the '''growing discord between the British (the officers in particular) and the colonists'''. The abuse of power on the part of the British officers was evident when Maj. Duncan Heyward and Col. Edmund Munro clearly broke the promise made to the colonists that they would be allowed to leave if their homes were being threatened. Col. Munro also states that the fate of the colonists is of no great interest to the crown, which shows that their motivations for fighting in this war were completely political and that they were solely focused on defeating the French. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to notice the clothing of the individuals in this film. While it seemed mostly period correct and they incorporated the adaption of clothing, I thought it was curious that the Huron was not dressed the same. I think I agree with Shauser's point about the film showing the Huron as more savage still than the Mohicans. Despite that perhaps purposeful imbalance, I think the illustration about Native Americans adopting certain European item was done well in the film. You can also see this in the weapons they used, '''even if it did seem a little over the top when Nathaniel shoots 2 guns while running up a mountain...but we won't go there.''' - Victoria Y.<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 />
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 />
'''''I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely!''''' --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<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 />
<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 />
To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<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 />
<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 />
<br />
<br />
'''I think one thing that the movie either got wrong or exaggerated was the relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans.''' In the very beginning of the movie, Native Americans and colonist comfortable intermixed with either other socially. This doesn't quite go along with the historical record which states that there was a lot of prejudice and conflict between the two parties. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
'''One of the biggest things that annoyed me in this film was the overall generalizations of each "character group". The Mohicans are the noble savages, the women are helpless and of course attracted to the wildmen, the Huron are blood-thirsty, and the European are just dumb. It definitely led the viewers to feel a certain way about each group.''' - Victoria Y.<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 />
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.''' -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
<br />
<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 />
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 />
<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the '''final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book''' so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes '''These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America''' that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, '''speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though.''' The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. '''Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers.''' Another aspect that was similar was in the way '''Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation.''' Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
'''I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family.''' -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
While I did see many similarities between the movie and the readings, there were one or two things I noticed in the readings that didn't show up in the movie. In "A World Turned Upside Down," on page 144, an Indian's account states "I am now to tell you the cause of all disorder and quarreling between us and our white men. It is Rum." (144) '''The movie did not have any Indians dealing with other drunken Indians or Europeans, but I do remember hearing it mentioned in the film. It makes me wonder, how much of a problem was alcohol for the Indians and Europeans in the larger scheme of things?''' Another difference I saw when comparing the movie to the readings was Indian treatment of captives. From Susanna Johnson's account, she said the Indians were very kind and compassionate to her. But the Abenakis were attempting to replace lost family members. In the movie, the Hurons were looking to get revenge on the "white people" for the loss of their loved ones. Maybe compassion and kindness from Indians varied from tribe to tribe. ---Alex M.<br />
<br />
There are a good number of Indian tribes that wanted peace. In "Speech Resisting Colonial Expansion," the Abenakis wanted peace with the English in exchange that their lands were not encroached by white settlers. In "Response to the Moravian Ambassador," the Delaware Indians did realize, in 1758, that the French and Indian War was started by both the British and the French, not them. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
There is a backwards parallel that I noticed between the film and the reading in "In a World of Warfare". While the Iroquois really weren't discussed in the movie at all, the disenchantment that is expressed in that reading regarding the Native Americans, I believe, comes across very well by the colonists in the film. The original willingness to fight for England slowly but very surely fades as more and more is asked of both the Native Americans and the colonist. So while the film doesn't represent the Iroquois, the feelings that are expressed in "In a World of Warfare" do come across through the colonist. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*'''How are the British colonists portrayed? How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?'''<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'''. -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 />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about '''the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie.''' After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that '''the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday'''. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
'''Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are.''' Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's '''the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans.''' While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. '''The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies.''' The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
'''What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became.''' They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
*'''Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?'''<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 />
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 />
<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 />
'''I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here?''' It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really like Anna's point. I hadn't really thought of it that way but I totally agree - the film only shows opposite ends of the spectrum for Native Americans. Nathaniel and his family don't seem to be that impressed with the British soldiers that they encounter, so the fact that they just whole-heartedly join in their fight seems odd. I guess "whole-heartedly" isn't the right word, because Nathaniel warns his friends at the fort to get out while they still can - he doesn't expect them to stay and fight for a noble cause. I suppose we're to assume that Nathaniel stays in the fight simply for Cora? I think the motives of Nathaniel and his family could have been more developed. - Celia<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that '''I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film.''' Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
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 (Mohicans) 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 (Hawkeye) and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
Cooper's dualist depiction of the Native American's present throughout the story can clearly be seen in the course of the film. '''The two distinct personalities available to the Native American characters are that of a brutal savage, such as Magua, and the noble, but doomed native, in Uncas, Nathaniel's adopted brother.''' In the film, the Native Americans all fall into these characterizations, and it is implied that the Huron warriors are all blood-thirsty savages, styled after Magua, their leader. Although Magua's motivations for revenge are made clear, his desire to harm innocent women simply to get back at their father suggests that he is unable to overcome the brutality that supposedly came naturally in the Native Americans. - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
For anyone who is relying on this film as accurate historical facts are going to be very limited in their views of Native American interactions with each other and with Europeans. As many have pointed out, there are the two extremes for these characters to fall into and somewhat limits the spectrum of the film itself! Besides the fact that there were so many other tribes involved during this time period that are never mentioned, it's upsetting to see the tribes fitting into characteristics that perhaps they don't belong in. -Victoria Y.</div>Vyale 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