The Important Message in Romero
[1] Can film as a medium make any sense of History? Most of the time that seems not even to be the issue. So-called “historical” movies such as Pocahontas and Glory have been attacked for straying from the recorded facts of the events they portray in an attempt to tell a more attractive story. This practice has its roots in the movie-making process. Hollywood exists to make money, do not be fooled. Movies cost millions of dollars to film, print, release, and promote. Therefore, producers have little choice but to create movies that will appeal to as many moviegoers as possible in an effort to earn back the investment. To this end, moviemakers feel the need to take liberties with plot, characterizations, and historical accuracy to create a product that will sell. Hollywood favors drama and conflict, so when an historical story lacks one of these elements, it is often simply added for the sake of appeal. This practice falls under great scrutiny by those with a serious interest in the events that these movies portray. Because the better part of American viewers expect and demand stories told with the Hollywood spin, those films that attempt to stick doggedly to the facts generally do poorly in the box-office.
[2] Many historical films, however, have found success while staying true to the facts. These films oftentimes come from producers, directors, and actors with a genuine concern for the events they deal with. Spike Lee certainly had a pointed interest in the making of Malcolm X, as did Tom Hanks in making Saving Private Ryan. Hanks’ emotional tie to the movie surfaced in his speech at the podium of the Oscars this past year when he urged Americans to support our veterans and reminded us of the gift they have given to our country. Passion such as Hanks’ from within the making of the movie can provide an energy and vibrance that appeals even more than cheap Hollywood tricks. Either way, the same dangers apply, because passion usually fosters strong opinions that create biases in recounting the facts. Biographies tend to radiate greatness; war movies tend to take sides; racial movies tend to invoke sympathy. The same passion that motivates these people to make historical movies can also lead to a perversion of the story’s historical facts.
The article “The problems with Native American Mascots” written by Laurel R. Davis covers many arguments regarding the use of Native American names and images for sports teams’ mascots. Rather or not sports teams should be able to continue using Native American names for their teams and images for their mascots is a highly controversial topic. Opinions will vary, especially when a person of Native American heritage is being asked opposed to a person of non-Native American heritage. Native American images should not be used for sports teams’ mascots as their use stereotypes the group, misrepresents many aspects of the Native American culture, as well as negatively impacting the lives of those that come from Native American heritage.
Throughout the course of time, adaptations of real events have been altered for entertainment purposes. This grand scheme has essentially influenced every single aspect of the industry to invoke emotion and drama to the viewer. Movies such as “The Fault in Our Stars”, “______________” and “____________”; These popular movies weren’t completely factual in fact most of the movie that are based on a true event are mainly fiction. In those few cases it’s understandable that the industry wants to engage a greater target audience to gain more monetary capital. Recently, the movie “Mississippi Burning” directed by Alan Parker faced similar scrutiny because the movie wasn’t based off complete true event. In many cases such as this one, changing historical
Wieberg, Steve. “NCAA Ponders Future of Indian Nicknames.” USA Today 15 May. 2005. SIRS Researcher. SIRS Knowledge Source. Wausau East Library, Wausau, WI. 16 Nov. 2008.< http://www.sirs.com>.
Native Americans are trying to take that next step. For the past 100 years Americans have stolen their sacred names and used them for mascots of high school, college, and professional sports teams. The National Education Association is one of the first to step to the plate by passing, Article I-41, which advises use of Prejudicial Terms and Symbols "The National Education Association deplores prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, size, marital status, or economic status and rejects the use of names, symbols, caricatures, emblems, logos, and mascots that promote such prejudice. (92,94)" By having these practices they believe the rights of Native Americans are protected. Native American Mascots in sports need to change to protect and uphold the rights that are granted to them from the constitution.
History can be learned through several different mediums, and it is arguable that the most popular methods are through film and literature. Each come with their own respective advantages and disadvantages, and can each have a different effect on how an event is both portrayed and conceptualized. When comparing the 1987 book Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and its Impact on American Abolition, Law and Diplomacy by Howard Jones, and the 1997 film Amistad directed by Steven Spielberg, it is apparent that both the book and the film are able to effectively retell the story of the events that took place aboard the Amistad in 1839. Yet each shed a different light on the matter and have been received by people in a different way.
Fighting the use of the word ‘redskins’” by Brian Cladoosby says how “[s]tudies show the use of American Indian-based names, mascots and logos in sports has a negative psychological effect on Native peoples” Cladoosby places a link to Dr. Michael A. Friedman research report which backs his case. In his study Dr. Friedman, a clinical psychologist says how Redskins is “uniquely destructive” because it “perpetuates the stereotypical and outdated caricature” and “promotes and justifies the use of a dictionary-defined racial slur, thus increasing risk for discriminatory”. With the rate of Native American suicide one of the highest in the nation the addition of their culture and history being stereotyped young Natives are facing discrimination and then being told that it’s okay because it’s for a sport. Cladoosby adds how that it creates a challenge to Natives who want to “maintain a foundation in their culture and language” meaning that ignoring a name that was once used when hunting their ancestors means that they are ignoring their culture. The name is not just racist and derogatory but promotes the an old-fashioned and stereotypical view of Native
[1] Within the last few decades, we have generated a great number of “historical” films reaching the American public. With these “historical” films come the question of whether or not the film portrayed history in an accurate manner; if not, why were the facts manipulated the way that they were. Unfortunately, this question is usually answered in the negative, and the audience is left with a fictional account of a factual happening, thereby giving the viewing public mixed messages concerning the issues raised within the film. Film used in this manner can be a dangerous tool in the hands of powerful people with agendas and ulterior motives.
There is no secret that films in the genre of biopic can often stretch the truth. These types of movies are frequently mere depictions of myth that is loosely based on factual accounts rather than being accurate representations of history. Many ethical dilemmas arise from these circumstances. Among those are the damaging representations that may skew a viewer’s perception of how history may have actually played out. Should filmmakers warn viewers that certain historical details of their forthcoming motion picture have been changed for the purpose of film? What are the editorial ethics when important details pertaining to vital pieces of history are left on the proverbial cutting room floor? The brand new film “Cesar Chavez” does a lot of work to bring about the often untold story of the California migrant farmworkers labor activism and organizing, yet in the process, manages to erase the pertinent contributions of the Filipino who many consider as the pioneers of these movements.
There is considerable controversy that dates back to the 1960’s over sports teams’ names that reference Native American heritage. “The National Congress of American Indiana’s (NCIA) created a campaign in 1968 to eliminate stereotypes found in print and other media.” (ChangeTheMascot.org). The American Indian community has worked for many years to abolish the right to use Native American Names, spiritual and cultural symbols by professional sports teams (Teters) that they feel offensive. The Washington Redskins football team continues to battle a long standing controversy to change their name. Native Americans, politicians, fans of American football, as well as the general public all seem to have opposing viewpoints regarding if this team should be forced to change their name out of respect to those offended.
Through its remarkable breakthroughs in film and what the camera could do, Birth of a Nation can be explored as a film that set the standards for future film development and masterpieces. However, one can never look past the way that African-Americans were horribly represented and depicted on film. This has caused this film to be such a great film to explore when studying film and especial minorities in film. This debate will continue way past my life and beyond. One must hope and believe that the ignorance of the few that still see this as a positive image of reality can be overturned and that this film can only be seen as a studying device for all those that look to explore the art of film and the sad realities that can come from the ideals of those who create film and movies.
Issue of whether to keep Mascots in schools or not, started in late 1970’s and from then this debate is going on. Most of the schools have Indian Mascots in place for half a century and suddenly it become problem to use Indian Mascots. Over 500 Native American organizations also announced their support for the removal of those mascots and over 1200 schools across the United States have changed the name of their sports teams and some school refused to play with those schools using Indian mascots. But some school still think that using mascots are just paying homage to the Native peoples and it’s just another group claiming to be offended. Sports teams used those mascots to promote their team’s athletic powers, like wolf, lion and eagle etc. How portrait of an Indain wearing hat with feather or headdress can be offensive or racist? One thing which never be done up to now that is to view our history from Native eyes. First of all, learn about their culture and their living style from their new perspective not the one which is given in our history books. From last hundred years we taught our generations that this is our country and we had a very long war with Indians which won. We also tell different kind of stories like burning of Fort Pequot Indians because they had trade relationship with British company. Can stories like this possibly be related to mascot issue? Using mascots are really a problem or just a political incorrectness.
The representation of race, in particular the issue of slavery and abolition in film is not only a highly emotive and potentially divisive subject but it also provides a means of accessing the past in a manner which is empowering and knowledgeably rewarding for the viewer. Representations of historical contexts in film are often critically considered to be amongst the main source of the general publics perceptions of the historic past. “When slave narratives are done on film, they tend to be historical with a capital H, with an arm’s-length quality to them. I wanted to break that history-under-glass aspect, I wanted to throw a rock through that glass and shatter it for all times, and take you into it.”1 Following the unlikely duo of a white German bounty hunter, Dr. King, and his black slave counterpart, Django Freeman, as they journey to reclaim the token damsel in distress, film director Quentin Tarantino sparked mass controversy surround the representation of African Americans and slavery in the south of America during the 19th century. The issue of race and slavery are directly confronted within the film told through the narrative of Django. Django Unchained is ultimately a story of white redemption; offering an interpretation into the justifications of slavery while race is represented in ways which both challenge and enforce stereotypes.
Although many movies try to recount the most important events and biggest accomplishments in history, many of them end up taking the focus away from the real impact of the historical event. Due to the need to create a movie that has drama and an attractive or complex story line. The 1995 version of the movie Pocahontas directed by Daniele Suissa focuses on Powhatan princess Matoaka, known as Pocahontas, and the events that resulted from English colonists settling in Powhatan lands. Although the movie incorporated a few important details of the actual historical event, overall, it poorly represented the lasting effects Pocahontas’s encounter with the settlers had on the history of colonial America.
In the cartoon film “Pocahontas” Disney screen writers attempted to make a film that could depict a certain period of history while still making it entertaining for younger viewers. The film was meant to introduce the history of early colonization in America to younger generations in ways that would be easy to understand, yet educational because of the topic matter. However, because of the numerous historical inaccuracies, it's almost as if Disney completely disregarded the historical aspect of the story and took an entirely different route. Overall, there are several historical accuracies and inaccuracies that leave historians to question the historical value of the film and the lessons it is teaching to younger generations on early American
History and films can be observed in many ways. Today, films have an important role to play in these histories. Motion films provide information to show what it was like back then and provided visual information to the ways people lived in the past. Today, films such as “The Truman Show”, shows what life was like back in the late 1900’s. For example, people were obsessed with reality TV, and the clothing was more formal than the way it is today. The technology was much more advanced than what it is thought to really be. Many of us would much rather watch films rather than read about history.