329-2012--Week 5 Questions/Comments

Things the movie got right
Languages and other non-magical moments

"Mark my word... there were serious language barriers in this film. Real ones. Also the fact that Morgan Freeman searched for translators on the docks as Doc suggested happened. I think they also got the idea of packaged slaves very well too. They were very VERY tight. It was sad. Traumatic. And well done." JST

I liked the way the movie accurately portrayed the language barrier that was such a problem in the Amistad case. Spielberg didn’t add subtitles to everything, only the Spanish perceptive. As a result, the audience gets an idea of what it may have been like trying to solve a case where the defendants didn’t speak English and how crucial it was for Baldwin to find translators down at the docks. –Paige

The main story of the film was accurate. The counting in the street to find an interpreter, Cinque killing the captain, and the depiction of the language barrier were accurate. '''I have gone to countries where I did not speak the language and the general feeling I felt was depicted in the movie. Not as drastic, but I know the feeling of being misunderstood and confused by what is going on around me.''' - Emily

I agree with both Paige and Emily, the film did a really good job in conveying the severe language barrier. '''Where as many films will simply resort to using english, Amistad continually retains the Mende language throughout the whole film. This gives the sense of frustration on both ends as the case continues to evolve.''' The language use in this films helps to portray strong sense of historical accuracy. --Rachel T.

The film's portrayal of the language barriers was excellent. By keeping the Mende linguistically isolated from the audience (in many cases, at least at first) it added to the sense of frustration as a few people have mentioned, and I thought also helped to involve the audience in the challenge of communicating with them. --Mary Quinn

At the beginning of the movie, the simplest detail of showing that the kidnapped African man couldn't swim and nearly drowned was very accurate (eventhough it looked like he was going to be able to swim for a bit). --Aqsa Z.

Historical Figures

I agree with Paige that the language barrier was well handled--- no Glade Plug-in moment this time! Even though I thought Van Buren was portrayed as a bit of a fool, Spielberg did capture his desire for re-election very well. They also seemed to get the gender percentages down pretty well for the captured men and women, as well as the tribal body modifications like the filed teeth. -Carrie

I thought it weird that Van Buren was portrayed as some fool in the white house (which he was never in!)and everyone laughed at his expense. Did they think about Burn that way then? He also wanted reelection so badly he would personally appeal the case. - Hannah Laughlin

I agree with Carrie's comment about how while Van Buren looked like a bit of a fool, his campaign for reelection was depicted accurately. I think the movie effectively conveyed that he was really preoccupied with those concerns, and so basing his decisions on the campaign. --Mary Quinn

I really liked John Q Adams character. I thought that the actor did a nice job portraying him. He stayed out of the conflict until the very end, despite the numerous attempts to get him to join the cause. His speech in the Supreme Court was compelling and made his point but just illogically enough with a touch of crazy to make it believable. Overall, I really enjoyed the character. ~Kayle P

Though I have plenty of negative observations about the casting (as you will see in the next section, I thought that casting Sir Anthony Hopkins in the role of John Quincy Adams was a brillian move. He was spot-on visually and his personification of JQA was really powerful. Great job. (Was he nominated for an award for this? I forgot to check that!) - Sara G.

While JQA's speech was very rousing I found comfort in watching the Supreme Court basing their decision entirely on the legal details. Its a minor detail but its historical accurate and avoids portraying the court as pro-abolitionist. Especially considering most of the court would later preside over the Dredd Scott case. - Zhen Chen

I really liked Mathew McConaughey's character. I thought he was well played, he showed that he cared for the Mende men. '''But that also made me question whether or not in reality he truly cared for the Mende men themselves, or he wanted to win the case and knew that legally they were wrongfully kidnapped. But... having Mathew McConaughey play this role ... I may be a bit biased as to why he was great.''' --Aqsa Z.

Overall Impressions

They got most of the hard "facts" right. Most of the right people are present, the events seem to follow the historical account, etc. The best part of this movie is the illustration of the way things were. Mende and other African peoples were often kidnapped by those who wished to make money. Those kidnappers could then buy European goods; we see in the movie they are buying weapons. We see how they are examined upon arrival in Cuba, the abuse women encountered, and the atrocities illegal traders committed. This movie almost made me feel as bad as Schindler's List''. I say "almost" simply because watching some crazy dude shoot at people (especially kids) for sport easily tops my list of things to hate humanity for.'' -- Brooke

The filmmakers got a lot of details right. They incorporated the basic story with all of the correct parties involved in the trial, the Spanish, Naval officers, and Ruiz and Montes. They accurately displayed the language barriors between the English and the Mende. Martin Van Buren did get involved because of his campaign and pressure from his advisors. Still, even with all these details right something is still off within this movie. -Amanda

As the others have said, many of the historical points throughout the filmed seemed to be correct. Also I thought the portrayal of the travel and A to B to C and the town seemed well done. pmccloy

I thought over all this movie got a lot of things right. It did a good job of displaying the atrocities of the illegal slave trade, the language barrier once the Mende got to America, and in particular I thought the filed teeth of one of the African men was a nice touch. '''I also really liked the first court room scene where at least three property claims were made on the African men during their criminal trial. The confusion and frustration caused by such a complicated case were well portrayed.''' The abolitionist movement was shown printing what appeared to be a newspaper in the attic of a church, but no organized attempt to explain the general unpopularity of the movement was presented. ~ Laura-Michal

'''This is a powerful film that speaks about an event that happened a while ago. It's very much a shock film''' (take a look at Madame T'ousants Wax Museum and check out that slavery exhibit... it's deep stuff). '''I say shock because it tells some very serious things about the horrors of slavery. Personally, I do not mind slavery being over done or overplayed in the film (I feel the same about the Nazi Germany or other horrible events in American/ World History) because it has an emotional impact on people and teaches them to feel the past, preventing the likelihood that it would be repeated'''. 'There is just so much in this film that is wrong, but I am telling you right now that I am ignoring it because of the films potential to paint a larger picture. Sorry guys.' --Jeremy S. Thompson

Steven Spielberg does try to get the facts rights and it shows. But some of these facts get lost or blown out of proportion because there is too much emphasis on certain scenes and added drama, but since that is what is needed to get people to watch movies. --Olivia

Slavery, Africans, and African Americans

Like most of you have mentioned, the film did do a good job portraying the major details correctly. Also I think the scenes depicting what the slaves would have experienced during the middle passage were pretty accurate with the conditions on the ship, the suicides and the emotional and physical trauma. --Mary O.

I appreciated the effort on the part of the filmmakers to not universalize the African experience. In the prison yard, they showed the different tribes setting their own territorial boundaries, and speaking different languages. I think Dr. M said that all the guys on Amistad were Mende, so it wouldn't really have applied in this case, but it was a nice try. Also, the interaction between the Amistad guys and the African Americans they encountered was really interesting --specifically the black cab driver that Cinque describes as a white man, and Morgan Freeman's character. Also, loved Freeman's emotional response as he explored the Amistad with Baldwin. JQA said that this character was a former slave, which I took to mean that he was born in the US and had never been aboard a slave ship, so of course, this was a revelation for him of what his parents had experienced. --Stef L.

This film reminded me a lot of Schindler's List and because they were both directed by Spielberg in his very unforgiving style in telling events how they actually were. '''The harsh realness of the atrocities done to these people is not shied away from, giving the sense of how brutal conditions really were. Disturbing visual images such as those in Amistad are crucial in helping the audience realize how severe the situation was in a way that words could never truly accomplish.''' -Rachel T.

One of my favorite aspects from the movie was '''the sense of panic and fear that Cinque exhibits when he is taken from the ship and placed in the jail. Spielberg and the actors delivered that captured the idea that these people had no idea what was going to happen to them next.''' From the readings many slaves constantly thought they were about to be killed and justifiably so with all of the brutality and suffering around them. This scene was tough to understand because as an audience you know he is in safe hands with the Americans but they would not have stopped resisting and fighting for their lives. They had no idea who these people were and what their intentions were. '''I also thought that the scene with the Bible was very powerful it reminded me of the importance of art in those times. Art was an incredibly important tool for the spreading of christianity for not only people who spoke different languages but also people who were illiterate.''' - Jason Milton

'''Watching the scenes of Cinque's flashback of his story was brutal- slaves on transport being chained down in cramped corners on transport, being denied food when they were ill, beaten, abused. I think his capture by other Africans was a good reminder that white people were not the only instigators of the slave trade.''' -WD

I appreciated the scene at the dinner with Van Buren and other officials where it is mentioned briefly and vaguely the concerns of the South about the precedents this case might set for slave rebellions. I thought it was an important addition since McClurken mentioned it in class. -Kendall

I was '''literally floored at the scene when some of the Africans were being pulled into the ocean by the heavy rocks. To imagine this atrocity really hit me.''' Spielberg definitely worked hard at depict the difficult Atlantic passage these slaves had to endure. --Ellen S.

Many things about the representation of the middle passage aboard the Tocara were well done. In addition to hitting many of the high points of this barbarism, '''Spielberg added a couple of small but notable things to help accurately depict the despair these captives must have felt. I thought that the scene where the mother, baby in arms, slips herself over the side, plunging with her infant child to certain death was very touching.''' It was clear that to her and for her child, death was a better option than where she was headed. – Sara G.&lt;/span&gt;

I absolutely agree with everyone else. I think this movie has been the most accurate by far. The scenes, plot, characters were all very true to what happened in real life. Everything I remember from the class lecture was in this movie. The flashback they have from what really happened were scenes I honestly could not watch. The director and producers of this movie did not exaggerate the conditions of the slaves on the ship or their indescribable experiences on the middle passage. The scene where that one woman jumped overboard into the ocean with her baby to commit suicide as the man was being whipped was too hard for me to look at, but was the actual experiences they went through. Very well done for the movie makers. --Aqsa Z.

Comments on the reading versus the movie
Watching the horrors portrayed in Amistad are terrible and unreal, yet who’s not to say that these atrocities committed in the film were not dramatized to get a reaction from the audience and to make the public realize that the slave trade was an evil act? '''However, reading the primary accounts of Equiano depicts the atrocities that actually happened, to the best of his memories, and these memories are just as terrible and unreal as those seen portrayed in the movie. The accounts of Equiano and other slaves being severely mistreated based on the color of their skin seems almost unbelievable and incomprehensible by today’s standards,' but were accurately portrayed in Amistad'' and allows the public to get an idea of how different life was in the early 19th century. –Paige

David Walker has some serious objections to the Amistad slaves saying that the Jews had it worse than the africans slaves did. Oppression Olympics 1830s style. I thought it silly that Cinque would say "Give us free" instead of "Give us freedom" but the letter to Adams confirmed that they did indeed stilt that word. Tappan's letter shows him to be very close to the Amistad prisoners yet the movie made his character into a zealot who would let them die as martyrs. In class we learned the abolitionist were ready to whisk the Amistad prisoners away if the ruling went against them. The mis-characterization of Tappan is not necessary at all considering that that plot point is never mentioned again. -Zhen Chen

I agree with Zhen Chen regarding the character of Tappan v "real life" Tappan. In the film he plays such a minor role, '''why make him into a self-serving zealot? This is a guy that did real work in the abolitionist movement, but the film turns him into an armchair activist, refusing to come to the aid of people that really need him'''. --Stef L.

While the movie was for the most part accurate, some changes were obviously made in order to increase the cinematic value. Cinque was portrayed as something of a noble savage in the film, willing to kill if necessary, but uneager to take on a role of leadership. In the letter to Adams that we read, the Mende writer is kind of sassy and it’s interesting to note that he invokes God, where in the film Cinque invokes his ancestors. ~ Laura-Michal

'''I think the film over all portrayed the feelings of the abolitionists toward the Mende almost as their equals. I don't think it conveyed the feelings of some abolitionists that slavery was wrong but that blacks were not necessarily equal to whites either.''' In Tappan's letter it refers to them as pagans and the "docile Africans", indicating a lesser degree of respect than was portrayed in the movie. -Kendall

'''The film's middle passage part coincided with Equiano. The conditions below deck were very accurate. The Lewis Tappan letter described things like sharpened teeth and quiet demeanor, which is true in the movie. However, Djimon Hounsou is not 5'8.''' But his extra height and mass made him seem more powerful and influential. - Hannah Laughlin

Both in class and in the reading Cinque was talked about as a natural born leader. In the Amistad he is portrayed as a loner and withdrawn from the other prisoners. --Olivia

Things the movie got wrong
Characters and Numbers

Baldwin was not a young inexperienced lawyer, and Morgan Freeman's character didn't exist at all! Unlike the class lecture, I never thought Joseph Cinque in the movie to be charismatic and having a strong force of personality. Instead he seemed like the stereotypical American hero. He's reluctantly taken the charge of the group leader. Everyone looks up to him but all he wants to do is return to his family. Very similar to the previous films' protagonists. - Zhen Chen

This movie is not 100% accurate, but I doubt it would be as believable as it is if the movie were to follow the accounts to the letter. Lomboko was raided in 1839 by the British, before the two court decisions--so that's wrong, but it did offer the best conclusion I think this movie could have had.Spielberg didn't want us to leave the theatre completely suicidal. '''The only thing that I just didn't understand was the choice to suddenly have a new judge. Is it because they wanted someone to seem inexperienced to the audience so when the appeal came, it wasn't surprising?''' Maybe the writers thought the audience wouldn't believe that a seasoned judge like Coglin would come up with a decision like that. We see that the surviving people on La Amistad were a few more than what we were told in class. And there were also a lot more children. It just doesn't seem smart to illegally trade children when grown men and women can barely make the journey. -- Brooke

The beginning of this movie had a lot of errors. The amount of Mende and other African people were about right, but '''there were way to many crew members. The Africans killed about 4, maybe more, when the historic record said there was only 4 total and that only the captain and cook were killed. The movie made the event much more violent and bloody. Another thing that I found strange was that Ruiz could speak Mende. He and Cinque seemed to understand one another, which just seems unlikely since Ruiz was from Cuba and didn't seem that interested in learning the languages of his slaves'''. -Amanda

Why does Matthew McConaughey always play the lawyer defending the helpless black? Also, did anyone else notice his southern accent slipping back in? I couldn't decide what his accent was supposed to be? - Hannah Laughlin

Honestly, I did not get the same sense of leadership from Djimon Honsou's portrayal of Joseph Cinque as I did from lecture on Tuesday. While he certainly appeared to be a strong man who had suffered horifically, I thought he was played more as a reluctant hero figure--He expressed his own feelings of doubt concerning the reliability of his skill when he killed the lion, for example. Just a bit different from what I was expecting. --Mary Quinn

I felt that the casting was all wonky in this movie. I was especially offput by the casting of Martin Van Buren. He’s one of the presidents that just about everyone in the world recognizes if for no other reason that his ridiculous side burns. I also take issue of the casting of a teenaged Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella II. The young queen would have been 9, perhaps 10 at the most considering the delay between the incident and the trial. - Sara G.

This may be a stretch, but maybe Morgan Freeman's character was a little based off of the young Reverend James W. Pennington. He was in favor of the freedom of the Mende men by fundraising for them. Also, I agree with Mary Quinn and Zhen, that the character of Cinque was seen as the ultimate hero, especially with the scene in the court room when he stands up saying "Give us Free..." The music and the look on McConaughey's face makes the viewer appreciate that moment and look at Cinque as a hero. --Aqsa Z.

'''I also found Yamba’s “conversion-by-picture-Bible” a little too convenient (albeit uplifting and touching). There was no demonstration of active attempts to convert these prisoners and I can’t in a bajillion years see Yamba turning towards the faith of his captors under the circumstances.''' (Though I do find it somewhat ironic that Sengbe Pieh’s grandson went on to become a missionary.) – Sara G.

Interpretations/Implications

I could be wrong, but from what I saw it seemed that the creators of the film were trying to imply that this case greatly impacted the issues of slavery in the United States but rather nails in the coffin of the trans-atlantic slave trade. pmccloy

The fight scene in the beginning is very violent. This happened, we read it. But not one of those guns that they were attempting to fire misfired due to wet powder. Waves spash the guns on multiple occasions and it was pouring rain. No misfire...divine providence or poor attention to detail? --NJenn

The movie made it seem like this one case sparked the Civil War! I had actually never heard of the case so it was surprising. - Hannah Laughlin

Errors with Van Buren

Van Buren never changed the district judge in the real case. After the first decision though, Van Buren wrote a letter to Judson to get a ship ready to send the men back to Cuba in order change jurisdiction. Judge Coglin did not exist, as well as Morgan Freeman’s character.- Emily

Van Buren would not have gone town to town campaigning for re-election, that did not become popular among Presidential candidates until the 1880s. --Mary O.

Terminology

?? I thought that the use of the word savage would not have been correct, at least not during this time period. Slaves were property and the term savages implies that they are people, often referring to Native Americans. I could be wrong but I thought that using this term would not have been accurate. ~Kayle P

Observations That Do Not Fit Neatly Under Other Headings

I am sorry, but I am pretty sure the sets were completely wrong. --JST

A scene which confused me was when Morgan Freeman’s character had an episode on the ship. They mention several times that he was born in America in Georgia so I did not understand his almost flashback like panic attack. Another thing that the movie did not do a great job of portraying was the overwhelming majority of the population that were against abolition during this time. There was the one scene when Baldwin was hit and the death threats but other than that it was a subject that was not focused on. - Jason Milton

While it was sappy and touching, the emotional African Violet incident that won JQA over was flawed. African Violets are indigenous to mountainous areas of Eastern Africa, specifically Tanzania and Kenya. They flourish in damp, shady areas, not West Africa. – Sara G.

'''In watching these movies, I’m seeing quite a trend - not so much in the movies as in myself. I’m a nerd. I’m a linguistic nerd and I’m a geography nerd.''' The representation of Africa’s west coast was off. It seems every movie we see, the beaches have to look like a Caribbean paradise. To accurately represent Sierra Leone, they would have been better off to hit a Hawaiian island with some lush green mountains near the beaches. And again, the accents in this movie are just all over the place. It was driving me crazy. I’d have been much happier with Matthew McConaughey’s, “Alright, alright, alright” accent than the mishmash he had. And John C. Calhoun’s accent is atrociously NOT South Carolina. – Sara G.

'''While I think they did a decent job representing the chaos and mistreatment aboard the ship, I don’t think that they really accurately depicted the cramped living conditions, the disease and the misery of life aboard ship. Also, every moment of air time on the ship was packed with action – beatings, murder and abuse. In reality, there certainly must have been days on end of quiet, sweltering despair. To uphold such a level of abuse would have been exhausting to the crew and would have killed too many slaves.''' I understand that through cinemagic, they had to compress the timeline, but still. – Sara G.

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
From what I can see from watching the movie and comparing it to the primary resources, for the most part, the film is historically accurate. This might be on account Spielberg making a painstakingly extra effort to be historically accurate with his blunder in portraying African Americans in The Color Purple, which received lash back from the African American Community. In Amistad, the events and atrocities that took place were accurate portrayed, however, the Africans still seemed to be portrayed as noble savages who will fight for their freedom. –Paige

I really felt like the choice made about downplaying the criminal charges in favor of focusing on the civil case says a lot about late 90s values. The criminal case does get mentioned early on in the proceedings, but I lost track of it pretty quickly and soon it was only the civil case, which focused more on morality than property, that got any play. Maybe it was just me, but I thought the moral imperatives got heightened more than the historic figures, Tappan et al excluded, might have actually felt. It also felt like the abolitionists were mainstreamed more in the movie than they were historically because we now see abolitionists as the "good guys" and it's weird to think that they would have been on the fringe (although nice touch with the stranger knocking Baldwin down) --Carrie

At the end, I though John Quincy Adam's speech was a little heavy on 1990s views on race. He makes a comment about how if Cinque, his friend, had been white he would have been rewarded with medals and there would not have been talk of murder and mutiny. I thought this was more of the modern view that race should not be a factor and that we should treat all people equally without race as a factor. I think there should have been more talk about the treaty and the fact that the slave trade was illegal than that Cinque should not be judged by the color of his skin. But that would make it less entertaining. -Amanda

I thought that the push of ideas relating to race was very well done. But '''I thought that they way that they portrayed the abolitionists as kind of self-righteous. Although they ended up in more of a positive light I wonder why they chose to portray them in this way?''' Pmccloy

'Dear 90s, please stop putting Matthew McConaughey in everything. He sucks. Thanks, Stef L.'

I thought it was kind of funny that Van Buren's entrance into the film had to be accompanied by subtitles explaining who he was. It was almost condescending but at the same time I can't blame the effort since a lot of people have a poor understanding of history (think Pocahontas). -WD

It was obvious that the Cinque and Baldwin handshake at the end was supposed to be an explicit statement on racial unification. Spielberg was definitely trying to be explicit by packing that moment with meaning. --Ellen S.