I thought it might be a good idea to discuss Glory as we have all seen this film hopefully in class on Wednesday just gone. I personally felt that if you got past the bad acting and cheesy scenes that it was a great film that dipics the "black man's struggle to fight for his own freedom"
There are reasons that it is not factually accurate and so this must be taken into account, i thought a very interesting scene was when the black soldiers from mass 54 refused pay. This would have drastic measures on the soldiers family as they also more then likely would be struggling to make money wherever they might be. It shows the commitment of all the soldiers to want to fight for there own freedom but also pay tribute to the white men who where truly also fighting to free the blacks.
In the last two weeks we have looked at a film to see if we can learn something about American history.. it might be idea to put forward the question by Richard Bernstian " can movies teach history?"
5 comments:
Second part...the website i found most intresting about Glory was infact a English website
http://www.channel4.com/film/reviews/film.jsp?id=103837
Even though it is not in depth I felt that it summed up the film well and was not trying to hard to explore meaning before the reader may or maynot have watched it.
This film Glory I wouldn't say was big in American history only because it was not shown for many years that their where actually black soldiers until the Vietnam war, But this film did show the 'struggle of black men fighting for their freedom’. This film shows courage, bravery and determination, even though all the black soldiers in the film died at the end this brutal ending helps people watching the film relies that black soldiers where in American history because even though they where enslaved and beaten they still fought for their country.
The website that was found was short but very detailed and very meaningful piece as it analyses the film showing the meaning behind it and why it was put into American history.
Sarah
I decided to do a little research on how true and historically accurate the film glory actually was; and it is suffice to say that although this film wasn't made until the 1980s (1989) it did very accurately display this moment in America's History.
If you look at this websitre entitled "important cities in Black History" (http://www.infoplease.com/spot/bhmcities1.html) you will note the regiment was in fact called 'The 54th Regiment of Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. So the part in the film where the soldiers refuse pay really asks the question "Were the soldiers going to be paid at all?" 'Volunteer' certainly springs to my mind as a scapegoat used by the American Government as another term for slavery for the black men. Would pay have confused the slaves as to whether they really were free men now, and if they survive the war without being captured and killed, or dying in battle; would that slave now be a free to do as he pleased? However, this (http://www.us-civilwar.com/54th.htm) website contradicts this fact and also brings light that the film did have some truth in at as the interesting fact at the bottom states the men were paid, even though it might be $3 less the the white regiments.
The film does however show a very human side to Robert Gould Shaw, as right from the beginning he is seen as just trying to survive, scenes being shot with a monologue of one of his letters playing over the top. During the civil war, Shaw was a very young man who rose to a high rank very quickly, presumably due to his Harvard Education and family status. So not only does the film show the terror and hardships found by the most popular black Regiment, it concentrates highly on the personal struggle of Shaw; going from a young naïve boy to the General of a very important and highly controversial Regiment. This could be how the film is seen as something that isn't entirely accurate and is only painting a romantic picture of the Civil War. This website provides a very clear biography of Robert Gould Shaw and how he wasn't a particular academic man and so, he did deserve to rise to the ranks very quickly as this was his eventual and most certainly well deserved respected vocation. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/6732/files/rgs1.html
Ultimately, the question "can films be used as a historical source?" is a very ambiguous question. Firstly, your instinct may be to say no due to your knowledge that films are fabricated and very rarely use any historical sources, yet due to the nature and content of this film it is highly possible that in order to make this film seem plausible and not just a Hollywood epic; it had to stick to the truth. Now, it can be certain to say that none of the directors, producers, actors or writers were around during the time of the American Civil War and it can be incredibly hard to produce something accurate where there are little primary sources. We do however have the letters that Robert Gould Shaw wrote to his mother before and during his historical involvement in the 54th Regiment. Using this gives us a very clear picture of what went on. So it Is safe to say that yes, films are very fabricated and ultimately used as entertainment for the masses, with the right amount of primary evidence to back up a point it can be a very useful way of looking at a moment in history.
In conclusion, you could use 'Glory' to give people a better understanding of Black American's participation in the American Civil War along with the adversity shown towards slavery. It would be best however to do this along with previous knowledge of the Civil War.
Here is a very good website which gives us primary sources from the Civil War and also highly accurate and good essays about the topic. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/warweb.html
Sorry for the essay guys, kinda got carried away - thanks for the info Alice!
It was a very good idea to focus on a film that the entire group had seen. Together with the reviews given for this week’s reading, the chosen website shows a variety of useful information, including quotations from the movie. On a closer look, however, there is only one movie quote and only one press quote in the review.
Like the other three articles, this website argues that while the film has numerous flaws, it a great piece of cinematography. This site mentions other films’ inadequacies in ignoring the aims of the Civil War as a fight for freedom. However, while the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Lincoln in January 1863 at the same time as the creation of the 54th Massachusetts, Glory ignores other factors such as the breakdown of the Union in influencing the start of the war. This is not mentioned in this website, either.
It is true to say that the film shows the main events correctly, such as the attack on Fort Wagner (though not attacked from the right position), which can be seen on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRjKhrwM4ms). Specifically, the death of Robert Shaw at the top of the Fort and his burial with the other men, have been mentioned in other website reviews and was true to form in the movie. Differently though, some writers like Joseph R. Laplante argue that the removal of William H. Carney from the film was a severe mistake in the restating of American history. It is therefore argued whether such a film as Glory could be watched in a classroom without causing disputes between what it presents, and the actual truth.
Therefore in attempting to answer Richard Bernstein’s title and Alice’s question- ‘Can Movies Teach History?’ it is important to recognise the significance of film and media in American culture. It appears that entertainment has become more dominant, than pure fact. One such example would be the widely spread Walt Disney Company’s influence in globalising world cinema. When examining such films as Pocahontas (1995), which states- ‘An American Legend Comes to Life’ on its front cover, it would show that the amusement of children has come at the cost of their education, through the retelling of history. The character Pocahontas has been displayed older than she historically was at this time, and John Smith left Jamestown a much longer time after his capture by the Powhatan tribe, than illustrated. This is a good example of entertainment overtaking of reality, as Native-American history has been ignored and even forgotten over time.
If Glory is to be denied in classrooms, then we must accept the fact that other films more covert in their misleading of history will have greater significance over student’s ideas of truth. As long as all films examined are seen from a critical viewpoint, there is no point in denying such a well made, though slightly incorrect film from being viewed, as many other films will still dictate people’s misguided knowledge on the issue.
Thank you Alice.
Post a Comment