Historically inaccurate and laughable film
-
beckmesser — 16 years ago(July 04, 2009 01:44 AM)
The fact that life4all had no idea that Spain was being so grossly misrepresented underlines the importance of at least some modicum of historical accuracy in a film that is advertized as being based on a true story.
The film fails in other areas as well - including that it is highly melodramatic. The story needs to be told, but an American pop film is not the way to tell it. -
mascharak104-1 — 16 years ago(July 04, 2009 05:00 AM)
There are certain melodramatic parts in the film and I agree that they shouldn't have been there. But the film is by no means a 'failure'; though not as great as 'Schindler's List', it does a rather good job in depicting the horrors of slavery. No "pop film", this one.
-
Gus-69 — 16 years ago(July 10, 2009 03:45 PM)
You lost me at "pop film". Who the beep are you trying to impress?
Mulholland CineLog:
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/ -
eljuma_1 — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 07:49 AM)
The most outrageous thing of all is that epilogue where you see the little brat queen jumping on a bed with her doll, while a voice over (or text over, can't remember) claims that she continued to demand a compensation for the slaves freedom and that all her hopes were vanished when the Union armies stormed Atlanta during the civil war like if she was rooting for the Confederates or something.
Well, so not only did the American Civil War not end with the capture of Atlanta, nor does the civil war really belong here (it's 20 years after the events in the film and I'm pretty sure she personally wasn't pursuing anything in this regard by that time), if anything Spain and Queen Isabella prefered an Union victory, as they were aware of the Confederate plans to invade Cuba (a Spanish colony at the time) in case of victory. Southerners in prebellum times were outspoken in the 'need' to take Cuba one way or another while the Northerners kept them at bay.
To me, it looks like the sequence was purely and explicitly designed to make the audience scream "Woah, what an evil little racist b*tch!". -
mascharak104-1 — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 11:27 AM)
Queen Isabella II did demand compensation from the USA after the Africans of the 'Amistad' case were freed. It is clearly mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Spanish-American relations that "In the years following the Amistad case, the Spanish government continually pressed for compensation."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_relations#Mid-Nineteenth_Century)
The Spanish queen's attempts to get compensation is also confirmed in this link (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/A/m/Amistad.html) as well as in Susan Dudley Gold's book 'The United States vs. Amistad', and in many other websites and books.
"Well, so not only did the American Civil War not end with the capture of Atlanta, nor does the civil war really belong here (it's 20 years after the events in the film and I'm pretty sure she personally wasn't pursuing anything in this regard by that time)"
Nowhere in the film is it said that the American Civil War ended with the fall of Atlanta; it is only implied that the Atlanta battle was a turning point in the civil war (which it was). Also, it is never said that the civil war belongs to the same period as the Amistad case; the case is simply depicted as one of important slavery-related events that took place in the years prior to the Civil War.
Also, while Spain never officially supported any side during the civil war, Lincoln was worried about Spanish intervention. That is why he sent Carl Schurz as a minister to Spain, to prevent Spain from supporting the Confederacy by reminding them that the Southerners wanted to annex Cuba. Schurz was successful, because Spain announced its neutrality on June 17, 1861. And as far as I can remember, the film never shows or implies any Spanish involvement in the civil war. -
Africanist — 13 years ago(June 19, 2012 12:50 AM)
Plus for the Confederacy? The Confederacy's main hope was foreign intervention. The Lincoln Administration's foreign policy strove to prevent that, and discouraging foreign intervention was a major reason for the Emancipation Proclamation.
ex africa semper aliquid novi -
docryanov — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 02:23 PM)
Wikipedia has this terrific feature called "sources". You can see them in well cited, well documented paragraphs.
Failing that, you can further verify facts by doing a simple internet search on any of the many search engines available!
Failing that, you can go do research yourself at online databases, especially if you go to a college, you have access to numerous research databases such as ebscohost or proquest!!!
Enjoy. -
pfgpowell-1 — 14 years ago(April 01, 2012 12:37 PM)
Well, I would disagree. Of course Spielberg is under no obligation to make a 'documentary' yet almost everything about his film cries out: 'Here's a slice of US history folks. Feel it, cry joys of gratitude and reflect what a marvellous nation we are. I thought some aspects of the film (and I know little about Spanish history, so I can't comment on that) quite nauseating.
-
Kent_Kainer — 10 years ago(May 22, 2015 03:04 PM)
I think it's more than obvious that Spielberg wasn't trying to make a documentary. It would be foolish to take this film as historical fact.
The errors he made are beyond this lame excuse.
One can expect from a writer as well as from a director to open a text book and fly over the case. Or if they were this lazy, ignorant or too busy then ask someone. Cant be this difficult.
Lincoln Lee: I lost a partner.
Peter Bishop: I lost a universe! -
Robbmonster — 16 years ago(August 12, 2009 11:45 AM)
Somebody much smarter than I made a quote once that can apply here
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story".
I'm not sure how much I believe it, in this case.
It's one of those issues that is basically unimportant to the general public. If someone is ignorant of Spanish history and they watch Amistad, they will not come away from the film claiming to know any more about Spanish history than they did before they watched the film. Sure, people aware of the facts may find it laughable, even offensive, but that wonderful entity The General Public is NOT going to see Amistad to see the Spanish take on the issue. It's a story about America. The depiction of Spain in the film will quickly be forgotten by your average viewer. But it is interesting to see that the inaccuracy greatly detracted from the OP's enjoyment of the film. I wonder how the film was recieved in Spain overall
I would be curious to see an accurate film made on the same subject told from a realistic and accurate Spanish point of view. Although it would be substantially less interesting to watch because, hey, it wasn't Spain's story. Spain seems to have been a rather auxillary participant in these events.
The last rambling point I will attempt to make is that historical films are rarely very accurate. But absolute truth in a movie would often make for VERY boring movies.
I hope I did not contradict my sig too much with all of that
"It's just a movie" is no excuse for treating us like idiots!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwRqc0KSkJ0