In Class Essay

In my US History class, we watched the movies Glory and Twelve Years a Slave, both of which involve pre-civil war history in the United States. Although it might seem to an outsider that we are not learning in this class, the reality I experience is quite different. Through watching these two movies and researching their backgrounds, I was able to further develop my analytical skills and explore real events, circumstances and attitudes.

I started out by researching the historical accuracy of each film. Glory was extremely true to the historical accounts it was based upon. Roger Ebert cites the shoes given to the soldiers, the battle strategy used, and the plot as a whole as examples of the movie’s dedication to historical accuracy. The two instances in which Roger Ebert contends the movie was not a completely accurate account are the tearing of the soldiers paychecks and the three african american soldiers the audience deals with most closely. While the paychecks were torn up after the men found out they were to be paid less than the white soldiers, the problem is not dealt with again in the movie. Ebert noted that in historical accounts, the paycheck inequality was an issue which lasted for several months, and that the film would have painted a more accurate picture of the soldier’s condition had they revisited this conflict later in the film. His other point was that the soldiers we see in the tent represent types of soldiers seen in the actual regiment, but do not reflect any one individual. With only these two minor lapses in historical accuracy, it is no wonder many US History teachers show this film to their students.

Twelve Years a Slave, however, did not maintain as close a relationship with historical accuracy. Artistic liberties are taken with the movie from the very first scene. The Atlantic was unable to find any record of the sexual encounter between Solomon and a female slave ever occurring. Later, the movie shows Robert being stabbed when he tried to stop one of the crew members from raping a female slave. This meant that the escape plan devised by Robert, Clemens, and Solomon was no longer feasible. Time magazine points out that according to the written account however, their plan could not be executed because Robert died from small pox. They point out how silly it is to imagine someone destroying over one thousand dollars of merchandise because the slave annoyed them. In a related note, Solomon also got small pox on the boat ride, and that left him with horrible scarring all over his face. The director chose to leave this fact out of the movie to let us see Solomon’s  unblemished, expressive face.

While the two movies delved into similar time periods, the ways in which they were executed were quite different. Glory was a very accurate film while Twelve Years a Slave succeeded in creating a film to which audiences could relate, and perhaps begin to understand the real horror of slavery. The film was even relatable to people in other countries. According to Box Office Mojo, Twelve Years a Slave grossed $187,733,202, of which only $56,671,993 was domestic. Glory did not share the same universality, and fittingly was not released abroad, and grossed only $26,828,365 domestically. 
      Glory had the historical accuracy but lacked the conviction and intensity of emotion demonstrated by Twelve Years a Slave, and for this reason was less successful in the box office. Glory also chose to focus on a white man as the main character, which is in contrast to Twelve Years a Slave where Solomon is both black and the main character. This is entirely opposite the idea that people wouldn't go out to see a movie with black lead actors. I think Twelve Years a Slave is better able to transform the historical evidence into an engaging story than Glory is, and although the facts may not all line up, Twelve Years a Slave creates the right impression of the time period; i.e., while the account is not completely accurate, it provides moviegoers with an account which is true and that creates the right feeling about slavery. 











Sources:Time Magazine article Provided fact checking for Twelve Years a Slave ,The Atlantic Provided fact checking for Twelve Years a Slave,Interview.com Interview with Steve Mcqueen about Twelve Years a Slave, Box Office Mojo Provided Profits from Glory, Box Office Mojo Twelve years Provided profits from Twelve Years a Slave. Roger Ebert, Expert critique of Glory

Glory Movie Poster

12 Years a Slave Movie poster

Trip

Solomon and others reporting cotton production

Eliza hurting Patsey

Reflection on Paraphrase Practice

It is important to be able to use quotes and paraphrases well in writing. Whichever option flows best or best embodies the intended idea should be used.

This is what I learned today:

Only use a direct quote when it adds power and style to my writing.

Always Make it clear, from context, that I understand the full meaning of the quote.

Whether I quote or paraphrase, I must always be transparent about the source and how I'm using it.

If I use another author's exact words or phrases, to any extent, I have to use quotation marks and give credit.

If I use another author's presentation of facts or ideas, but put their ideas in my own words, (paraphrase) I better have a good reason for doing so, and I MUST give credit.

Hyperlinking is so easy, there is no excuse for not being transparent about my sources.

I understand these.

September 2 classwork

This week, I learned about the dynamics of the cotton industry. It all revolved around money. Changes were implemented in the system when those changes would positively impact people financially. For example, the invention of the spinning jenny allowed thread to be made much more quickly. This drove the invention of the mechanical loom. The mechanical loom was able to weave much more quickly than a person could, and did not have to be paid. The cotton gin came next, which sped up cotton cleaning by 50x. This meant that there was only one slow step controlling the rate of production: the rate at which cotton could be picked. This was increased by forcing the slaves to use both hands while picking, the use of record keeping to hold the slaves to a high standard, and the use of brutal force to "encourage" the slaves to work faster. This resulted in a 5x increase in speed. While the labor was res, there was no incentive to build a machine to automate cotton picking, so cotton remained hand picked until 1930 when a mechanical cotton picker was invented. We know all of these things because of records that were kept. There are journal entries, letters, and mass produced slave labor tracking books that survive from those times that can be used to figure out what happened and why. Evidence must be taken with a grain of salt however. Individual pieces of evidence provide knowledge of only a limited area or group of people. Spurious conclusions can be drawn if knowledge based on a small sample size is used to extrapolate the behavior of a larger group. 

Practicing Incorporating a Quotation

I like the movie Glory, despite my dislike for Matthew Broderick. The fight sequences were infuriating but accurate to the strategies employed during those times. The historical accuracy continues by maintaining as Roger Ebert puts it: "enormous attention to period detail, as in such small touches as the shoes issued to the troops (they don't come in right and left, but get to be that way after you've worn them long enough)" 

In this exercise I practiced embedding a quote in a textual analysis of a the film Glory. I made sure to use the quote within context, and I attributed it to its source.

Paraphrase Practice

Roger Ebert review

"I didn't understand why it had to be told so often from the point of view of the 54th's white commanding officer. Why did we see the black troops through his eyes - instead of seeing him through theirs? To put it another way, why does the top billing in this movie go to a white actor? I ask, not to be perverse, but because I consider this primarily a story about a black experience and do not know why it has to be seen largely through white eyes."


My paraphrase:

It seemed somewhat strange that although the story mainly concerned the experience of black men, the story was told from the perspective of a white male. Why was the role played by Matthew Broderick a lead role instead of a supporting one? It would make more sense to focus mainly on the circumstances of the soldiers with asides gauging the effects these circumstances had on the morals and opinions of the officer overseeing the troops rather than the other way around; the audience should mostly be watching the soldiers watch the commanding officer, not the officer watching the soldiers, and the movie does not do a good enough job facilitating this paradigm.