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.