Inaccuracies In Amazing Grace

The film Amazing Grace, a period drama about the abolition of the English slave trade, based upon Adam Hochschild’s book Bury The Chains, is a compelling period drama, yet is riddled with historical inaccuracies and creative licenses. The most glaring of inaccuracies are, the complete lack of references to the actual slaves themselves, the general factual creative liberties, and the lionization of William Wilberforce as the sole crusading hero of the anti-slavery movement.

The African Slave Trade, in particular, the Middle Passage, was one of the cruelest actions humanity has ever perpetrated on another. The ferrying away from their homes of 12.5 million people, of whom 10.7 million survived was, by all standards, a crime against humanity.

In particular, the Caribbean slave trade, monopolized by the British and French, was the most inhumane. During the course of slavery in the Caribbean, 6 million slaves arrived. Most of these slaves were worked to death by the time they were thirty, forcing slavers to rely on constant importation of slaves from Africa. The experience of these slaves was brutal, as they were forced to not only do the back-breaking labor of collecting sugar in the fields, but also the process of purifying and crystallizing it. Adam Hochschild describes this process as having a “satanic ring to it[sic].” Many slaves were crushed by the rollers which purified the sugar or burned alive in the furnaces which were involved in the process as well. These cruel actions were the real driving reason behind the abolition of the slave trade. However, the movie chooses to focus on the trials and moral tribulations of the English abolitionists, with more time spent with Banastre Tarleton(a pro-slavery crusader) describing the plight of Liverpool merchants if the slave trade were to be abolished than actual time spent showing the slaves themselves. Demonstrations of crowded ships, Thomas Clarkson’s chains and Olaudah Equiano’s brand are nice, but the actual brutal conditions that Caribbean slaves operated under were not portrayed well enough.
The movie is rife with general topics that are simply incorrect. Thomas Clarkson, one of the leading figures in the anti-slavery movement, is inexplicably portrayed as an alcoholic, even though he identified as something close to a teetotaling Quaker. Furthermore, the last speech of the film is given by Charles Fox, however, this never occurred, as it would have been given months after his death in 1806. Another rather glaring inaccuracy is the presence in the House of Commons of the Duke of Clarence, who would have been a member of the House of Lords. Additionally, the film portrays John Newton, a former slave captain turned preacher, as an itinerant monk, who spends his days in penance for his sins. These actions of penance would not have occurred and Newton was far from a hermit, rather from 1787, he was an active member of the anti-slavery movement. There are other faults, too, such as the likely fact that Wilberforce and Equiano never met. The conversation at Wilberforce’s mansion would not have been facilitated by William Pitt, whose role in the anti-slavery crusade is rather overstated and it would also not have included Hannah More, for women would have had their own anti-slavery societies and Wilberforce was notedly not a feminist. His wife, Barbara Spooner, was portrayed as a charming, and capable hostess, an intellectual equal of Wilberforce, yet she was not, showing little interest in politics and being a general poor hostess.These details are generally insignificant, however, they serve to illustrate that this movie is purely for enjoyment and is not to be watched for its historical accuracy.
The final, and most fatal flaw in the film, is it’s lionization of William Wilberforce.

There is a certain degree of liberty that may be taken with a character’s life in a biopic, but the portrayal goes beyond conventional standards. Wilberforce is portrayed as using laudanum for his Colitis, and it definitely shows some of the opioid-induced dreams he had, it fails to really show the depth of his addiction to the medicine, which became more of an addiction than a medicine for his disease. The opium problem is the sole flaw with which Wilberforce is portrayed. The movie centers around Wilberforce’s attempts to abolish the slave trade, yet enlarges his role so much as to blot out many of his compatriots. Thomas Clarkson, the heart and soul of the movement, is portrayed as an alcoholic. Olaudah Equiano, whose autobiography of his experience as a slave galvanized the British public, is portrayed in the film, but has very few speaking lines. The portrayal of Wilberforce as the sole hero of the movement is therefore inaccurate. The movie also touches on the evangelism of Wilberforce as a catalyst for his crusading, but doesn’t spend a great deal of time discussing his faith beyond a conversation with William Pitt. Wilberforce is a compelling figure and an important historical character, but his role is somewhat overstated and some of his important life details are

missed.
In conclusion, the movie is an enjoyable piece of entertainment, but should be regarded as nothing more than that, largely due to its historical inaccuracies, its portrayal of Wilberforce and its notable lack of representation of the slaves themselves. The Anti-Slavery accomplishments of the British, with complete abolition thirty years prior to the United States, are notable and important. Wilberforce was a crucial cog in the movement, and despite the movie’s flaws, it does it’s job in depicting the ending of the slave trade, and by extension, chattel slavery.