Historically inaccurate and laughable film
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Amistad
Epicureum — 16 years ago(April 25, 2009 01:05 PM)
As a citizen from Spain, I must say that I have found Spelbierg's film 'Amistad' not only historically inaccurate, but also laughable. The film presents a picture of the Spanish monarchy in the 19th century that has nothing to do with the historical reality. Spielberg wants us to believe that the Spanish monarchy was an infamous piece of nonsense and a cruel tyranny with a dictator girl as head of the Spanish State. Spielberg's vision is manicheistic, simplistic, false and even full of anti-Spanish prejudices. Spielberg demonstrated that he doesn't know anything about the history of Spain, and that he doesn't give a damn about it.
The real facts tell us a completely different story about monarchy and slavery in Spain in 18th and 19th centuries:
-Slavery practically disappeared in Spain in 1776, though it continued in its American colonies.
-Tortures and severe punishments on slaves were forbidden in American colonies by Spanish laws in 1784. The contraband of slaves was also persecuted.
-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.
-In 1817, Fernando VII forbid the capture of slaves in Africa.
-In 1837, slavery was legally abolished in the metropolitan territory of Spain, though it wasn't abolished in its American colonies.
-In 1873, slavery was legally abolished in the ultimate rests of Spanish Empire in America.
As for Spanish monarchy, we must say two things:
-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.
-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. -
nerdgeek32 — 16 years ago(May 08, 2009 09:39 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. Speilberg has no obligation to make everything historically accurate. He's not trying to teach us anything.
You're overreacting, too; movies are no medium for straightforward fact. If someone really wanted to learn about spanish history, they'd read a textbook, or consult a historian. Nobody goes to a theater to study. And don't attack his intelligence; saying he must not know anything about Spain becuase he doesn't organize the movie parallel to spain's history is like saying: Since you don't have any black friends, you must be a fevent racist.
If something's history doesn't call for a very compelling plot, why adhere strictly to the way things really turned out?
You have a great amount of validity, though, to your discontent. IN some cases, shunning the true history of a country in a movie is disrepsectful, and shows laziness / a lack of ability to make a compelling story using real facts (instead, having to make them up in order to hide ones own inaquedacy).
But, in the end, the movie was made to emotionally impact, to captivate, and to express great philosophies that Steven wants us to ponder (not learn, but ponder). And it did that freakishly well. Anthony Hopkins played such a diamond role, I can't get it out of my head.
I do praise you on your broad knowledge of spanish history. Kudos. -
life4all — 16 years ago(May 10, 2009 05:19 PM)
I must admit I had no idea that Spain was being so grossly misrepresented. It is somewhat disturbing. I think however, the movie has merit in presenting the case of the Amistad. It adds another face to an issue that has unfortunately seen little reflection in film. Strangely enough, the contemporary mind views reviewing and learning from the past as a waste of time. These are the same minds that view Kennedy, King and Elvis as ancient history. We all know what forgetting the past leads to reliving the past in the future. I would certainly hate to see man extend his reach into space without the prime directive (an invention of Gene Roddenbery that embraces the past).
-
beckmesser — 16 years ago(July 04, 2009 01:44 AM)
The fact that life4all had no idea that Spain was being so grossly misrepresented underlines the importance of at least some modicum of historical accuracy in a film that is advertized as being based on a true story.
The film fails in other areas as well - including that it is highly melodramatic. The story needs to be told, but an American pop film is not the way to tell it. -
mascharak104-1 — 16 years ago(July 04, 2009 05:00 AM)
There are certain melodramatic parts in the film and I agree that they shouldn't have been there. But the film is by no means a 'failure'; though not as great as 'Schindler's List', it does a rather good job in depicting the horrors of slavery. No "pop film", this one.
-
Gus-69 — 16 years ago(July 10, 2009 03:45 PM)
You lost me at "pop film". Who the beep are you trying to impress?
Mulholland CineLog:
http://mulhollandcinelog.wordpress.com/ -
eljuma_1 — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 07:49 AM)
The most outrageous thing of all is that epilogue where you see the little brat queen jumping on a bed with her doll, while a voice over (or text over, can't remember) claims that she continued to demand a compensation for the slaves freedom and that all her hopes were vanished when the Union armies stormed Atlanta during the civil war like if she was rooting for the Confederates or something.
Well, so not only did the American Civil War not end with the capture of Atlanta, nor does the civil war really belong here (it's 20 years after the events in the film and I'm pretty sure she personally wasn't pursuing anything in this regard by that time), if anything Spain and Queen Isabella prefered an Union victory, as they were aware of the Confederate plans to invade Cuba (a Spanish colony at the time) in case of victory. Southerners in prebellum times were outspoken in the 'need' to take Cuba one way or another while the Northerners kept them at bay.
To me, it looks like the sequence was purely and explicitly designed to make the audience scream "Woah, what an evil little racist b*tch!". -
mascharak104-1 — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 11:27 AM)
Queen Isabella II did demand compensation from the USA after the Africans of the 'Amistad' case were freed. It is clearly mentioned in the Wikipedia article on Spanish-American relations that "In the years following the Amistad case, the Spanish government continually pressed for compensation."(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_relations#Mid-Nineteenth_Century)
The Spanish queen's attempts to get compensation is also confirmed in this link (http://www.bambooweb.com/articles/A/m/Amistad.html) as well as in Susan Dudley Gold's book 'The United States vs. Amistad', and in many other websites and books.
"Well, so not only did the American Civil War not end with the capture of Atlanta, nor does the civil war really belong here (it's 20 years after the events in the film and I'm pretty sure she personally wasn't pursuing anything in this regard by that time)"
Nowhere in the film is it said that the American Civil War ended with the fall of Atlanta; it is only implied that the Atlanta battle was a turning point in the civil war (which it was). Also, it is never said that the civil war belongs to the same period as the Amistad case; the case is simply depicted as one of important slavery-related events that took place in the years prior to the Civil War.
Also, while Spain never officially supported any side during the civil war, Lincoln was worried about Spanish intervention. That is why he sent Carl Schurz as a minister to Spain, to prevent Spain from supporting the Confederacy by reminding them that the Southerners wanted to annex Cuba. Schurz was successful, because Spain announced its neutrality on June 17, 1861. And as far as I can remember, the film never shows or implies any Spanish involvement in the civil war. -
Africanist — 13 years ago(June 19, 2012 12:50 AM)
Plus for the Confederacy? The Confederacy's main hope was foreign intervention. The Lincoln Administration's foreign policy strove to prevent that, and discouraging foreign intervention was a major reason for the Emancipation Proclamation.
ex africa semper aliquid novi -
docryanov — 11 years ago(April 14, 2014 02:23 PM)
Wikipedia has this terrific feature called "sources". You can see them in well cited, well documented paragraphs.
Failing that, you can further verify facts by doing a simple internet search on any of the many search engines available!
Failing that, you can go do research yourself at online databases, especially if you go to a college, you have access to numerous research databases such as ebscohost or proquest!!!
Enjoy.