Difference between revisions of "329--Week 5 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→4 Public reaction/impact) |
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey's finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. "Of course it's him!" I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you've got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren't put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn't invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed | Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey's finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. "Of course it's him!" I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you've got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren't put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn't invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed | ||
| + | |||
| + | The scene where Morgan Freeman and Louis Tappan are in the buggy and Tappan mentions that his cause for abolition might be better suited if the Mendes were killed, for purposes of Martyrdom, I think really contributed to an understanding of the complexities of the abolitionist movement. Several abolitionists got involved in the Amistad case, hoping it would help perpetuate their cause for the emancipation of slaves. When the trial turns out later to just be one based on technicalities rather than the moral issue of slavery, I am sure the abolitionists, like Tappan in the movie, were greatly disappointed. Freeman's comment on how the only thing some abolitionists hate more than slavery are slaves themselves was really powerful. That attitude was true during this time, where even those who opposed slavery suffered from racism. ~Juliann Boyles | ||
How involved was Queen Isabella? I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don't recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident. It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams? The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally. Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik | How involved was Queen Isabella? I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don't recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident. It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams? The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally. Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik | ||
