Glory one of Cracked's 'Most Unintentionally Racist Movies About Racism'
-
Fire God — 16 years ago(December 04, 2009 07:00 AM)
I agree that the complaints are unfounded. One thing people aren't taking into consideration is that the movie is mostly based on Shaw's letters, and that he is the narrator. Maybe this was by far the best source of info on the subject they could find, and thought Shaw's narration was the best way to go, purely because no other way would have been as informative. Of course, if the story is told from his perspective, he's likely to be one of the main characters. So what? Would it be nice to have a story about this regiment that focuses more on one of the black soldiers? Yes. But it is also nice to have Glory, which doesn't focus on color, but rather has a white man telling a story about a black regiment.
-
Hancock_the_Superb — 16 years ago(December 04, 2009 09:08 AM)
Well, I think there's a small degree of legitimacy to the claim - Roger Ebert, although generally positive towards Glory, raised a similar objection. It's a common trope in films to have a white protagonist surrounded by minorities, perhaps to make the films more accessible to a mainstream white audience (Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond, Last King of Scotland being some other examples). But in this story I'd argue it was appropriate and even necessary, given that the focus was explicitly on Shaw.
"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!" -
NoahBody — 15 years ago(August 08, 2010 08:03 PM)
I'm familiar with the review you're referring to. ol r. ebert is an idiot when it comes to racism. His white guilt has him seeing racists in every shadow.
His major beef was "why have a white character" now ignoring the obvious racist stance that quote takes it also forces one to ignore history. Let me give it a S.W.A.G. maybe they had a white guy as the C.O. because.. drum roll because a white guy WAS the C.O.! -
activista — 13 years ago(June 22, 2012 03:07 AM)
No,everyone on here is still NOT getting what the article is aboutI read it, and it does make some valid points about Hollywood always having to stick a main white character in a story about black people, and always having the stories of black people be told MAINLY through a white person's point of viewlook at THE BLIND SIDE or THE HELP,GHOSTS OF MISSISIPPI,MISSISIPPI BURNING for examples. THAT'S all that the article is saying. The point was, why couldn't the story have been told from a black officer's point of viewso what if it was based on Shaw's memoirsthe movie didn't have to be just all about him. It seems like a lot of you just don't want to understand where the author of the CRACKED article was coming from with thatbut then, if you're a white person, of course you don't see racism because you're never affected by it directly, because EVERYTHING in the media reflects a white point of view,period. So of course you don't see racism in ANYTHING,because EVERYTHING in the white-owned media supports white people's view of the world more than anything else. That's how it usually is, but whenever someone points a legit basis for pointing out racism and how it's embedded in our very system, everyone wants to scream "Waaaah,gotdammit! You're making me feel white guilt just BY pointing racism the hell out! Don't do that anymorewaaaaah!" Hell, ignoring racism sure as hell has never gotten it to go away-so let's all deal with fighting it day by day,step by STEP, one group/person at a timelet's just get the job done, that's all!
-
indy_go_blue44 — 12 years ago(March 24, 2014 04:28 PM)
Speaking historically, what events transpired with the Black Men (with utter and all due respect) in the 54th that wasn't shown that would have carried through and developed the movie? More tent scenes? Another prayer/song scene?
Through Shaw, a veteran of Antietam, we're able to see the formation of an all black regiment. We're able to see the problems he had with supply, the reactions of the other white officers to a black regiment ie, the view at command level, something that could have never have been obtained by focusing more on the enlisted men.
Be aware that their were no black officers in the Civil War, though several became NCOs, so there were no black officers to focus on.
Could they have developed more of the black soldiers and told their stories? How would they differ from those we were shown?
I'm not sure Broderick was the right person for the role, myself, but IMO he showed the strength of a man who wasn't about to let his unit be anything other than honorable soldiers, and he did an okay job at that. Not all commanders were Sheridans, JEB Stuarts or Custers. -
joedogboy68 — 11 years ago(June 09, 2014 05:48 PM)
The point was, why couldn't the story have been told from a black officer's point of view
Maybe because the regiment didn't have black officers?
So your racism is strong enough that you want to rewrite history in order to put modern PC values onto a film about a historical event.
I guess that you are also arguing that "Twelve Years a Slave" should have had an a more diverse cast - with people of all races int he roles of slaves, and people of all races in the roles of slaveowners.
Maybe, since blacks make up less than 15% of Americans, they should make up less than 15% of the cast in any movie - so 85% of the 54th should have been non-black actors (and 51% should have been actresses, because 51% of Americans are female), and only 15% of the actors can be black in a film like "School Daze" about students at a Historically Black College. -
activista — 10 years ago(February 06, 2016 12:48 AM)
@joedogboy
So your racism is strong enough that you want to rewrite history in order to put modern PC values onto a film about a historical event.
Oh,pleasewhite people have always rewritten history to make themselves look like the victors. Y'all been doing that s*** from day one. Asking that the film be told from a black soldier's point of view isn't "PC", it would have made the film even more interesting,plain and simplebecause damn near everything in the movies is from the majority white point of view. You completely misunderstood what the other poster was sayingalso you rarely see any Civil War films exclusively from an African-American view,anyway. Ain't a damn thing "PC" about thatit's just from a different point of view that isn't the white point of view for once. How hard is that to understand. -
skrall-991-949327 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 06:11 PM)
activistaplease don't let your racism get in the way of making your OWN movie. This movie is about telling the story from the Colonel's perspective. Not saying the black soldiers had it easy, but Colonel Shaw risked a lot too.
Soshut the beep up about THIS movie and make the story YOU want told. OHso posting on the message board is your crowning achievement? Going to change the world by.well how exactly? Fighting with everyone? Don't just complain and criticize. That's the easy coward's way. DO SOMETHING. Lead by example, show the courage and sacrifice it takes to do this.
The soldiers depicted in this film had courage, braveryand most importantly ACTED on it. If you had HALF of what they had, the story you want toldwould be. There'd be no arguments about THIS film, you'd have your OWN.
But, that would take too much to do, right? -
dannieboy20906 — 9 years ago(May 29, 2016 06:18 PM)
Go do some research and present the memoirs of a Black soldier from the 54th Regiment. Then you have another problem, if it is a junior soldier you are going to get a limited view. The soldier can only write about what he sees.
Robert Gould Shaw had the advantageous position of being the commander. He saw the politics, the valor of his men, and the strategy. In the meantime, the viewpoint from the soldier's point of view was not short changed.
There is a racial historical error in the movie. The large majority of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (Colored) was made up of free men of color from Massachusetts. I don't know, but it is possible that most of them could read. There were more soldiers like Thomas than like the escaped slaves shown in the movie.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
Fire God — 10 years ago(December 03, 2015 11:06 PM)
This activista guy is dismissively sifting through a whole lot, including how powerful the narration of this movie was. Without the letters, you'd miss out on that and most of the information provided in this film. Glory gives you incredibly important and interesting characters, including Robert Shaw. Unfortunately, not even Shaw's letters give you enough of the specific black soldiers who were in the regiment in question, but at least this movie does provide plenty of heart and soul from the fictional black soldiers. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, among others, present incredibly inspirational Union participants who helped to make this movie the great achievement it was.
-
banders46 — 14 years ago(April 25, 2011 08:40 PM)
Yes, and similar objections have also been raised about the numerous movies set in apartheid-era South Africa (Cry Freedom and Dry White Season). I understand the sincerity of these objections, but movies (and all fictional stories, really) are about change and conflict. By bringing a white character into the world of black characters (or vice versa) in these various volatile situations, conflict naturally arises and characters learn about each other. If you threw out the Matthew Broderick character, or just treated him as a minor character, you'd still have a great story of courage and bravery, but it would be nearly as interesting, IMHO.
-
cvsandstuff — 13 years ago(November 09, 2012 03:23 PM)
You are kidding right?
It wouldn't be as interesting for people who are limited in terms of those that they are able to relate to.
The pattern is clear and irrefutable..
But Hollywood is ultimately about making money so it is what it is.. -
activista — 12 years ago(July 18, 2013 02:29 AM)
@cvsandstuff
Oh,so movies form a black person's view aren't interesting at all? White people can't relate to black people as just PEOPLE, seeing as we're shared the same continent for well over 500 damn years? What's so damn hard about that? Yeah, right,whatever. -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:01 PM)
The primary difference between "access" film characters such as the ones you mentioned, and Glory, is quite profound.
THIS IS A FILM ABOUT AMERICA BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS. THERE ACTUALLY WERE MILLIONS OF WHITE PEOPLE THIS WASN'T MEIJI JAPAN, HAVING A WHITE CHARACTER IN A WAR FOUGHT ALMOST ENTIRELY BY WHITE PEOPLE ISN'T RACIST, IT'S LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
There's this psychotic notion from the OP's author and apparently that old dead bastard Ebert, among many others. That portraying a white man in a sympathetic or even positive light in the Civil War or the entire slave era is somehow racist. THAT IS RACIST. The slaves didn't free themselves. Sorry. And it took black and white people working together for decades for abolition movement to make it to the White House and that's when all hell broke lose.
It is fantastically racist to look back, with an almost childish concept of reality, and simply conclude, "white=bad, black=good, so any portrayal of white people must be bad, or you're a racist". -
pendragon235 — 16 years ago(March 19, 2010 12:38 AM)
The author of the article shows his ignorance right from the off.
Ed Zwick, director of The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise as the last samurai) and Blood Diamond (starring Leonardo DiCaprio as an African)
Cruise's character was never a Samurai and not all Africans are black.
As for
Glory
, Broderick may have the most screen time, but it's quality, not quantity that matter and Freeman and especially Washington own the movie with their performances. -
hachmom-1 — 16 years ago(March 30, 2010 07:01 AM)
I do know that some reviewers pointed out at the time (i particularly remember roger eberts review) that the film paid to much attention to the white soldiers and not enough to the black soldiersbut its a long step from considering this a flaw in the story to considering it racism unintenional or otherwise. Personally i dont think it is a flaw, it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing, and it gives you something to hang the story on. Just like the memorial to Shaw in Boston, where you see Shaw leading his men but you also see the individual faces of his soldiers.
It is not our abilities that make us who we areit is our choices -
nubbytubbybiatchesgalore — 15 years ago(January 11, 2011 04:34 AM)
it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing
actually, it's the story of the 54th massachusetts infantry. and the movie is based only in part on his letters. the movie is also based on two books concerning the entire 54h mass infantry.
the fact that you think this is shaw's story and not the story of the infantry itself is the point of the cracked article. the movie could just as easily opened and ended with denzel's character (or any other black character) and given his death the movie's emotional climax, instead of opening and ending with broderick's character. the movie makes broderick's death and his sacrifice more important than the death of anyone else. and it makes it seem like they only had the courage to attack the hill because of broderick's inspirational sacrifice, as though they didn't have enough incentive to kill these defenders of slavery already.
but that was 1989, and studios thought white people needed a white hero for the lead or no one would watch. so really, it's the studio (or the american public, if the studios were right), that are racist, more than the movie itself. the fact that you wouldn't see a movie like this made today (unless the black soldiers are make believe naavi in a james cameron movie) shows that the studios took notice of the criticism.
a movie about black people fighting for their freedom doesn't need a white moses leading them out of bondage as the main character.
as the cracked article says, the movie is unintentionally racist. paternalistic or condescending might be a better word though.
and the movie is actually racist in other ways, showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns, or when they loot the south carolina town. and what was with the mentally challenged black guy. just because he's illiterate doesn't mean you have to play him like he has the mind of five year old. i digress -
Promontorium — 12 years ago(March 21, 2014 02:10 PM)
You are a racist. Plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with focusing on and positively portraying a white man who actually existed and fought and died in the Civil War. He did lead a regiment of African Americans. It happened. Call him "white Moses" all you want. IT IS REALITY. "doesn't need a white Moses" - see this is fiction. Write a fictional story, and exclude all the races you want, because you're a racist.
Every point you've made is complete crap.
"Paternalistic"? Liar. Not a single character portrayed saw Broderick's character in a fatherly way. Adversary, hindrance, boss, ally, friend even, but no one saw him as a father.
Name one way in which the film was condescending to black people. Seriously, try.
"showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns" You mean showing HUMANS acting like kids when they first get their guns. Racist.
" or when they loot the south carolina town" WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE LOOTERS BEING WHITE AND DOING FAR WORSE MORON.
i digress
You never made a point to begin with. You just listed baseless conclusions and then vaguely referenced scenes. -
SpiltPersonality — 16 years ago(April 01, 2010 09:42 PM)
Cruise's character was never a Samurai
Amen to that - the Last Samurai was clearly Katsumoto. I think that the author of that article seems to automatically think that the actor with the highest billing is the subject of the title.
Making Uma Thurman "Bill", Tom Skerritt "the Alien" and Kelly McGillis "the Accused".
Seems an odd way of looking at things. I would have thought taking your brain with you to the theatre would be a good start - especially if you intend to write a review.
SpiltPersonality