Connecting to the Future
Historical Representation
While I'm not surprised in the least that films such as Glory and Amistad were among the most used, I am a bit shocked at the numbers. I don't think I ever had a history teacher who used a portion of a film a week. MAYBE once every two weeks, but never every week. The films were used as rewards for finishing a section, or as icing on the cake at the end of the year. A few of the films were actually used to lead into course work, but then there were also the times we watched a film because the teacher was absent or was working on grading that day. Due to my own experience, I'd have to say most of the numbers reported seem to be a bit off, but then again, I was only seeing things from my perspective then, as a high school student, one who didn't have the slightest urge to teach a social studies class, so I saw things differently than I do now.
I do have a concern with the "Burden of Historical Representation" article though. The critique seemed a little harsh, at least to me, when looking at the white characters in the films. While today, focusing on a white character simply for that reason, would be discriminatory, to say the least, but during the time period in question, it seems to be the right way to have gone, at least in these films. Whites during the time period, had the power, opportunity and social standing. The characters focused on, also had the simple privilege of being the ones in charge. A narrative of a soldier in the 54th Massachusetts would be a dramatically different story than the perspective told int he actual film. I think it's as much a testament to whites who proposed equality as it is to the blacks who fought in the 54th. Shaw's character in the film had to endure many terrible episodes, just the same as the blacks. Think about an event where you knew something was wrong, but you were the only one who believed so, and speaking up would mean the loss of your career and ostracism. The feeling of knowing you should (and sometimes have to) speak up, can be almost overwhelming, and extremely uncomfortable. The scene in which Shaw eats with the white officers for Christmas (I believe) is a perfect example of how detestable some people can be, and knowing the consequences if you speak up. Shaw's emotions are clearly visible and make for a scene feeling as if it will burst due to Shaw's desire to let out his reproach.
Moving on... Shaw's character's perspective gave many more benefits than would a simple black soldier in the 54th. Not to mention, the story is about the exploits of the 54th Massachusetts, and Shaw being it's commander had the privilege of knowing everything about the unit, and gave a much better understanding of the events which took place. Seeing from the perspective of a soldier would have given a very limited vantage point. If you wanted to tell the story of blacks who fought in the war, then focus on the soldier, but if you wanted to focus on the unit as a whole, and it's exploits, then the commander is a much better choice.
As far as the "white savior" idea, I'm just not onboard with it. The white characters did do a lot, but never in either of the films did I feel as if the white characters were placed on a higher level than the Africans or African Americans. In Glory, Shaw has many character flaws, just as well as many virtues, just the same as Morgan Freeman's character, or Denzel Washington's. Actually, I liked Freeman's character more than I liked Shaw's. And in Amistad, Morgan Freeman and Djimon Hounsou both have strong black characters. McConaughey and Hopkins both have strong flaws in these men as well. McConaughey is young and inexperienced, and Hopkins doesn't even really want to get involved (neither historically accurate though). And I fail to see someone wishing to help a group of people as an example of a "savior". But I have my own way of looking at things...
I do have a concern with the "Burden of Historical Representation" article though. The critique seemed a little harsh, at least to me, when looking at the white characters in the films. While today, focusing on a white character simply for that reason, would be discriminatory, to say the least, but during the time period in question, it seems to be the right way to have gone, at least in these films. Whites during the time period, had the power, opportunity and social standing. The characters focused on, also had the simple privilege of being the ones in charge. A narrative of a soldier in the 54th Massachusetts would be a dramatically different story than the perspective told int he actual film. I think it's as much a testament to whites who proposed equality as it is to the blacks who fought in the 54th. Shaw's character in the film had to endure many terrible episodes, just the same as the blacks. Think about an event where you knew something was wrong, but you were the only one who believed so, and speaking up would mean the loss of your career and ostracism. The feeling of knowing you should (and sometimes have to) speak up, can be almost overwhelming, and extremely uncomfortable. The scene in which Shaw eats with the white officers for Christmas (I believe) is a perfect example of how detestable some people can be, and knowing the consequences if you speak up. Shaw's emotions are clearly visible and make for a scene feeling as if it will burst due to Shaw's desire to let out his reproach.
Moving on... Shaw's character's perspective gave many more benefits than would a simple black soldier in the 54th. Not to mention, the story is about the exploits of the 54th Massachusetts, and Shaw being it's commander had the privilege of knowing everything about the unit, and gave a much better understanding of the events which took place. Seeing from the perspective of a soldier would have given a very limited vantage point. If you wanted to tell the story of blacks who fought in the war, then focus on the soldier, but if you wanted to focus on the unit as a whole, and it's exploits, then the commander is a much better choice.
As far as the "white savior" idea, I'm just not onboard with it. The white characters did do a lot, but never in either of the films did I feel as if the white characters were placed on a higher level than the Africans or African Americans. In Glory, Shaw has many character flaws, just as well as many virtues, just the same as Morgan Freeman's character, or Denzel Washington's. Actually, I liked Freeman's character more than I liked Shaw's. And in Amistad, Morgan Freeman and Djimon Hounsou both have strong black characters. McConaughey and Hopkins both have strong flaws in these men as well. McConaughey is young and inexperienced, and Hopkins doesn't even really want to get involved (neither historically accurate though). And I fail to see someone wishing to help a group of people as an example of a "savior". But I have my own way of looking at things...
Comment
About
© 2009 Created by Bethany Smith on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
You need to be a member of NCSU College of Ed to add comments!
Join this Ning Network