Historically inaccurate and laughable film
-
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 -
sceme6482 — 16 years ago(August 21, 2009 12:47 PM)
A person who takes movies as facts shouldwell better not to say. Just start use a common sense. As mentioned, movies are not the source for historical facts. For example not many people in US know where iraq is, not many US know that Finland has no polar bears or that Finland and Russia is not the same thing
Just open the book covers more often or do some research over Internet for facts.
This was just a movie with great story. However even without being correct with the actual history, you can pick elements here and there that were done wrong, and should have been or/and were corrected. -
robertcop — 16 years ago(November 20, 2009 04:51 PM)
totally agree. a movie with a great story, no matter where are the bad boys from. instead from Spain one can figure out they are from France, Britain, the Netherlands or any other slavery nation, but this just does not matter in the story.
in Spain the movie was released as any other Hollywood film with no further problems. I can recall of some review in the specialized press about the unaccuracy of the historical events, but no argue against the quality of the movie.
a poster from Spain.
PS: I guess Rambo is not based on historical events of the US-Vietnam war.. lol -
CivilWarBill — 16 years ago(February 22, 2010 08:06 AM)
Let's take your argument point by point:
"-Slavery practically disappeared in Spain in 1776, though it continued in its American colonies."
When does the film state that slavery existed in Spain? Nowhere. The slaves in question in this film were to be used in Cuba, a Spanish colony, where slavery still existed. When the mutiny occurred, the ship was traveling from one part of Cuba to another. This is exactly what the film shows.
"-Tortures and severe punishments on slaves were forbidden in American colonies by Spanish laws in 1784. The contraband of slaves was also persecuted."
The film depicts Africans being thrown overboard during their passage across the Atlantic, not in Cuba. These horrible practices, although efforts to stamp them out were made, continued for a long time. Just because a law exists, that doesn't mean everyone follows it.
"-In 1811, the Spanish abolitionists and members of Parliament (yes, there were also important abolitionists in the Kingdom of Spain!) Guridi Alcocer and Agustn Argelles proposed a law to abolish slavery. In 1813, Isidoro de Antilln defended abolition before the Spanish Parliament."
Does Spielberg's film ever state, "there were no abolitionists in Spain!" No, it does not. Nor would a rational viewer of the film conclude that. And, those efforts to abolish slavery failed Slavery in Cuba continued until after the Ten Years' Waruntil the 1870s.
"-In 1817, Fernando VII forbid the capture of slaves in Africa. "
Again, laws are not necessarily followed. For example, the Africans depicted in the film were, in fact, obtained illegally from Africa, and then purchased by Spaniards for work in Cuba. Or should Spielberg have chosen not to make the movie, in order to make Spaniards in Cuba look better?
"-In 1837, slavery was legally abolished in the metropolitan territory of Spain, though it wasn't abolished in its American colonies. "
Ding dingwhat's that second half of your sentence? Cuba was one of Spain's American colonies, where slavery still existed.
"-In 1873, slavery was legally abolished in the ultimate rests of Spanish Empire in America. "
34 years after the events depicted in this film.
"-Isabel II didn't reign at all while she was underage (this part of Spielberg's film is completely laughable): Spain was governed by her mother, the Regent Queen, and by General Espartero. "
This point is more fair although the young queen's role is somewhat vague in the film. We see that she is informed about the events going on, but we don't see her acting as a young tyrant at any point.
"-After Isabel II's ascension to throne, Spain was a Parliamentary Monarchy, in the style of British monarchy. There was a Parliament which represented Spanish people's will, and two major political parties (Liberal Party and Conservative Party) with different ideologies; there existed freedom of press and speech and full division of powers. "
Again, I don't think the film contradicts what you say here. If the film had shown the young queen jailing all of the political opposition, executing people, and presiding over every aspect of Spain's politics and economics, you might have a point. But the film shows none of that. -
ave_roma2004 — 11 years ago(November 29, 2014 04:39 PM)
No, you're beep wrong.
The film continually depicts Isabella as a little girl-Queen who will have her way. She is continuously referred to in that manner, and without an audience knowing any better, she will be taken as such.
Every single reference to Spain is one that screams "SOME LITTLE GIRL IS IN CHARGE AND SHE CAN MAKE THE COURTS DO WHATEVER AND BLARGABARGLAGARBALGBAGH"
Face the beep facts - this movie was made for Americans who don't know any better. Period. -
gribfritz2 — 13 years ago(December 31, 2012 11:59 PM)
I believe only in US English, not in UK English, which is what I think he was referring to. You know, like dropping the "u" in flavour and colour. UK English is a great invention. And have no fear. The US will continue to improve upon it
-
poopfock — 14 years ago(September 23, 2011 03:29 PM)
I'm upset that there's no such thing as a "robo" cop. I was mislead into thinking such was true, until I went to the Detroit police department and demanded to see the robo cop himself, and they informed me it was just a movie. How upsetting that the Detroit metropolitan police department was cast in such an inaccurate light.
Someone went through great lengths to make this non-fact look believable, and it is appalling. I demand justice -
Stirling00 — 14 years ago(January 31, 2012 01:08 PM)
This film wasn't really "about" Spain. La Amistad was built in Spain and owned by a Spaniard living in Cuba- running a slave trading operation, which was legal under Spanish law in their colonies. So this.
"In 1873, slavery was legally abolished in the ultimate rests of Spanish Empire in America."
is the only thing Spielberg even tangentially dealt with vis-a-vis Spain. 1873 is 42 years after the events of the film [and 10 years after we backward, ignorant, rednecks in the US completely abolished slavery].
Ruiz and Montez were Spanish citizens as well. Queen Isabella DID continue to press the US govt [not personally, through her ministers] for compensation for this slave insurrection. These are facts. It wasn't meant as a broadside against Spain or the Spanish. Spielberg never said Spain was REALLY REALLY pro-slavery and there was a slave on every block in Madrid and Barcelona up until the 1980s. He never said there were no Spanish abolitionists. There's no need to be so sensitive- it's an entertaining film from which you can draw valuable lessons.