Is it possible to learn from a movie?

Abbie Childs

Film Essay 

Alright, here goes nothing. I’ve been building up to this moment for the past few weeks and now it is time to write. I just moved to a new school. I had gone to Randolph since kindergarten and we used movies or videos for practically every subject at least once a semester. My new history teacher has a strict policy about no movies. She says it isn't possible for us to learn anything of value or to improve out thinking skills by watching them. She gave me a challenge and that is why I am writing yet another post. My argument is as follows; it is possible to develop great analytical skills and explore real events, circumstances, and attitudes just by watching movies in a critical way, and doing some research. 

In order for me to do this, I’m going to use my knowledge of the movies Glory and 12 Years a Slave. Most people normally wouldn’t out these two movies on the same playing field but, why couldn’t you? The fact of the matter is, both of these movies are about slavery. The difference in the two is one is told through the eyes of a white man and the other through that of a black man. 

The movie Glory is based on a set of letters written by the main character. It portrays the lives of the 54th Infantry of Massachusetts. The film originally was meant to portray how rudely whites treated blacks, free or not, even in the northern states and to show how much harder it was for these men to live “normally”. Now, we all know there’s no such thing as “normal” but, to them, the whites had it better. After the film was completed, the movie ended up lessening the horrors of being a colored person, especially male, in general. At first, the blacks weren’t treated too kindly but, by the end of the movie, the main character has become the caregiver and almost guardian of these men. These are just observations made while watching the movie. We found out that people were rude no matter where they lived. We learned that there were people who cared and watched out for these men. And we learned that color should never define a person or their potential. Upon doing a little research, I found many more interesting facts. I discovered that even though a majority of the movie did occur, it was twisted around to make a better story. We also can’t be too sure how the movie ended in reality since the regiment got completely wiped out. We can depict information from years of historical research and information but the truth is, there’s always another side to the story. It doesn't matter how you look at it, everyone’s brain is wired differently. As James Bernardinelli of ReelViews states, “Glory is constructed as an inspirational tale, but the inspiration is not forced or false. It is rooted in the characters and the manner in which they overcome obstacles, including, most prominently, their own personal demons.” 

The movie 12 Years a Slave  takes a different approach to this topic. The movie is based on a book written by it’s main character, Solomon. This story is formed from a free black males perspective after being tricked and forced into slavery for twelve years before being rescued. It depicts the horror and the cruelty and the shame that is inflicted upon slaves day in and day out. If I learned anything though, it would be that this movie was simplified too and that the real world is too harsh to even display for “pleasure”. Solomon’s book actually contains more violence and just outright hatred toward the slaves. Many of the scenes in the movie are over eighty to nighty percent verbatim and very few scenes or sections of dialog cannot be proven one hundred percent accurate. One scene we prove false though is at the very end. Solomon’s daughter, Margaret, actually didn’t recognize her father when he returned. In the movie she is the first to speak and the first to approach him however in actuality, it took her quite some time to put his face with the name of her father and for it to match up. To prove just how real this movie and book are I looked up some reviews. One in particular really stood out to me and it was by Fredrick Douglass about the book written by Solomon. He said, “its truth is stranger than fiction”.  This just goes to show how even though we all know this kind of thing happened daily not too long ago, we don’t realize how truly awful it really is. Another review I found interesting was written by Steven Rea of the Philadelphia Enquirer. He says, “it speaks to the courage and resilience of one man, the savagery of many, and the potential for both good and for ill.” 

When preparing to make an argument that would allow me to bring some old traditions to a new place, this information was good but not good enough. I then went on to compare awards, cost and budget, and how successful they were. To me, the results weren’t surprising at all. Glory cost a year 18 million dollars to produce and grossed 64 thousand dollars in the first weekend it premiered at three locations. 12 Years a Slave cost roughly 22 million dollars to make and has so far made roughly 190 million dollars in return at over 1,100 locations, 56.7 million dollars of that made here in the United States. Both movies had a 90% or higher average for whether the viewer liked the movie or not and both won numerous awards. 

So, after watching and researching both of these movies I still believe that it is possible to learn from them. I think that both movies portray the key information that is needed to see what this country is based on and I feel that I have gotten a true understanding of what took place that I might not have otherwise because having it acted out in front of my face brought it all to life and made me realize that even though the world can be cruel, it always gets better.   

For more information on these movies or to just see if someone out there feels the same way you do feel free to check out the following pages: 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/10/17/_12_years_a_slave_true_story_fact_and_fiction_in_mostly_accurate_movie_about.html 

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/12_years_a_slave/ 

http://ashbrook.org/publications/oped-owens-00-patriot/

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/movies/12-years-a-slave-review-theft-of-freedom-20140124-31cba.html

http://screenrant.com/12-years-slave-reviews/ 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/12_Years_a_Slave_(film)

https://blogs.mcgill.ca/hist-399-2014/2014/03/20/glory-film-review-by-alex-langer/

http://digital.lib.lehigh.edu/trial/reel_new/films/list/0_10_9_22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glory_(1989_film)#Reception

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgsZ54j_yEo 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/reviews/article-2536824/Brutal-brilliant-This-remarkable-retelling-evils-slavery-hard-watch-MUST-12-Years-A-Slave-says-film-critic.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzhea4Z53wY 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rr3nNCoZpOI 

What I've Learned

Upon starting this blog, I was clueless. 

This is what Mrs. Lawson wanted me to learn today:

• Only use a quote when it adds power and style to my writing.• Always make it clear, from context, that I understand the full meaning of the quote.• Whether I quote or paraphrase, always be transparent about the source and how I’m using it.• If I use another author’s exact words or phrases, to any extent, I have to use quotation marks and give credit.• If I use another author’s presentation of facts or ideas, but put their ideas in my own words, I better have a good reason for doing that, and I MUST give credit.• Hyperlinking is so easy, there is no excuse for not being transparent about my sources.

Now, after writing several posts I know what is expected of me and I am ready to begin my blogging adventure. 

Paraphrase Practice

As you saw in my last post, there are some big differences in the movie Glory and what actually took place during that time period. Here is what Alex Langer thought of the film, "While the film’s errors of fact are problematic, more so is its engagement with sources. The film relies primarily on the letters of Colonel Robert G. Shaw, with letter-writing acting as a plot device. The film’s story is thus told through the perspective of an upper-class white man. While there is nothing inherently wrong with using these letters as a source, the fact that the narrative relies on them as the sole personalizing source is a problem.  The film should have, if possible, integrated some primary-source material from an enlisted (black) man’s perspective. Even if this wasn’t possible, a more critical depiction of Shaw’s narrative should be forthcoming. As the film is already a piece of historical fiction, perhaps a black narrator and protagonist could have been used to provide a more honest historical narrative, if one less directly grounded in primary sources. As well, the film paints race relations in the North as fairly rosy, with substantial prejudice but without virulent hatred. While a few white characters, such as the quartermaster who refuses to grant the regiment boots, speak rudely about black people, it is not particularly intense. This ignores a history of profound racism in the free state, with many black soldiers fighting in the war to prove their worth to society. The casual use of racial epithets by white characters when discussing the regiment, for example, would have made the film far more realistic and engaged more directly with the North’s racist past, as opposed to restricting the portrayal of racism to the South or individuals from border states like Missouri and Kentucky, such as the commander of a separate regiment of freed slaves.[3]Related to the question of perspective is the most important flaw in the film: its use of racial stereotypes and a racialized narrative of white cultural supremacy in its portrayal of its characters. First, the film’s protagonist, Colonel Shaw, is portrayed as a father figure who enacts fierce discipline to make his soldiers “behave.” This is feted in the film, so long as Shaw also appears sympathetic to his soldiers, such as when, after being forced to flog a heavily scarred ex-slave for absconding to find shoes, Shaw angrily demands that his regiment be supplied with army-issue boots. Rather than question what appears to be gross negligence on Shaw’s part in not knowing that his regiment was suffering heavily from a lack of proper footwear, he is celebrated. This eliminates the exercise of agency by black characters, showing that change is only possible if and when enacted by a white savior.Shaw’s portrayal as a beneficent and caring authority figure is problematic, although explained by his role as the regiment’s commanding officer; more troubling the depiction of the film’s black characters. The broader narrative reinforced by the interactions and portrayal of these characters is that the “whiter” the character is, the better.  The four central black characters are Tripp, Rawlins, Jupiter and Thomas; the first three characters are all ex-slaves.  Thomas, an educated free man with “white” mannerisms and culture, is portrayed positively, while Tripp, who is cynical about the Union’s promises and is hostile to white people and white society, acts in some ways as the film’s direct antagonist. Tripp is portrayed especially negatively when his cynicism affects others, such as when he attempts to interfere with Thomas’ efforts to teach Jupiter –a highly sympathetic, illiterate former slave with a speech impediment- how to read, or mocks white Union soldiers retreating from battle." This was extremely helpful but, did I truly understand what he was saying? I wasn't sure of my answer I decided to take what I had learned from Langer and form my own thoughts based on his work. The events that took place throughout the movie did occur in real life however the actions and roles of the people differ based on perspective. The movie is based on a set of letters written by the main character, Colonel Shaw, who is an upper class, white male. This automatically sets the movie up to not be hundred percent faithful to the actual events. Before, during, and after slavery blacks were (and in some cases still are) discriminated against. This brings up the question, why should this change just because a black man is free? The answer is simple, it doesn't. The white people of the north could be just as cruel, if not worse, than those of the south. The movie on the other hand actually makes it seem that many northerners considered blacks on almost the same level if not equal. The true reason the movie was made was to show the nation (and world) how hard it was for these men to have a life and how unfairly they were treated due to white supremacy and in reality makes it out to seem that everyone was on the blacks side. To me, it was shocking how the truth can vary so much from one side to the other.

Incorporating a Quotation

How often do you watch a movie based on a true story and then after seeing it wonder how much of it is truly real? I have often asked myself this question but never have I taken the time to find out. Until now. As a kick off to my junior year, our United States History teacher decided to show us a film called Glory. This movie was written about the the first ever army of blacks, also know as the 54th Infantry Regiment of Massachusetts. In an article written by Alex Langer, he states "The film is an accessible look at the history of the regiment, and is effective in its portrayal of the horrors of the Civil War. However, it is not historically accurate and engages uncritically with its source material". He later goes on to simplify this saying, "[...] Glory suffers from a lack of historical accuracy[...]". This definitely answered my question but, it just wasn't good enough for me. To find out more, read my next blog on paraphrasing to see what else Alex Langer and I have to say.

Empathy vs Sympathy

The words sympathy and empathy are often used interchangeably however, upon taking a closer look at these words, they are actually quite different. Empathy requires a person to imagine themselves in the other person's shoes. It relies more on a thought or fact versus a feeling. Sympathy is all about feeling and being sorry. By feeling sorry for someone and changing your mood based on how another person is acting, you are being sympathetic. When you are empathetic towards someone, you imagine how you would feel in their situation or you give advice and offer to help because you've been where they are before.  I know this sounds crazy but, it is possible to empathize with someone even if you haven't been in that situation. Picture this, you are walking down the hallway, halfway through the school year, and you see a new kid. You've gone to that same school since before being the new kid was awkward or embarrassing when your mom still held your hand and you had your card moved when you spoke out of turn. All the new student orientations happened months ago and all the new students and freshmen have found their groups. Yes, most people's reaction is to go "awww poor kid I feel awful for them". This would mean you are being sympathetic but, what if, instead of feeling bad you think about how awful and alone they must feel. Just take a minute and think about all of the thoughts running through their head and how overwhelmed they feel. This is empathizing and the end result most likely ends in you walking over and introducing yourself and lending a helping hand without feel sorry for them. Did you know it's also possible to feel empathetic toward a subject you don't agree with? Well it is! I don't agree with war. If there was one thing in this world I hate more than spiders, it's the constant fighting and the constant political differences around the world leading to people killing other people. I can also see why this has to take place though. By sending our troops over-seas to fight, they are protecting our nation. It's so hard to imagine having to leave my family behind, travel around the world, and go to sleep every night thinking it might be my last time to ever fall asleep because I want to. I also wouldn't want to have to kill another person. That goes against every single one of my beliefs and morals that I have been raised up on. The only reason I can empathize with these actions is because they are keeping me and you safe and protecting our rights and freedoms here as American citizens. Even though I don't agree, without these men and women fighting for us, who else would? So, I guess what I'm trying to say is, I get why they do what they do. The ability to empathize with one's surroundings is key for historians because we have to be able to look at both sides of the story, whether we like it or not, and see why certain actions where made without becoming biased, which is what happens when you sympathize with people or situations.

 pixshark.com (google images)