Historically inaccurate and laughable film
-
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. -
Zuider_Zee — 13 years ago(April 17, 2012 06:36 AM)
It's nothing more than Spielberg's usual brand of schmaltzy crap. If you hold your expectations down very low, a Spielberg film can be quite satisfying but to expect anything of substance leads to certain disappointment.
-
jon_s_chan — 13 years ago(May 27, 2012 11:45 PM)
I would not give a beep if the movie was historically accurate. Spielberg wanted to make and I wanted to see a movie with deep undertones dealing with slavery which also was simultaneously engaging and entertaining. He succeeded as the movie's creator, I succeeded as the viewer. Folks that worry about historical accuracy can go to hell for all I care.
-
Africanist — 13 years ago(June 19, 2012 12:47 AM)
Two points, since you missed the point of the film:
- This was not a film about Spain, but about the United States.
- Sure, Spain had laws against the slave trade. (BTW, are you really so racist as to think the Spanish could just walk into Africa and grab people, as Fernando VII meaninglessly forbid them to do?) Those laws were not enforced by Spain but only by the UK. Importation to Cuba continued long after the events in this film. The same point is valid for the rest of the unenforced laws on the Spanish books.
ex africa semper aliquid novi
-
greenbanzanas — 13 years ago(July 08, 2012 01:53 PM)
Spain ranks up there with the US of A, the UK, France, Germany and Rome as the worst of the all time worst. Oh yeah, the Ottomans weren't so hot. Frankly, the Turks are just as bad, but then we can't forget the Chinese and Japanese or Russians, so where does that put us. Oh yeah, Portugal is atrocious and so are the Dutch.
Heck, they're all awful, but Spain still has the honor of its past, since at least the 15th century as being particularly hideous.