The Bold Belle

Norma Rae is a labor union film based on the true story of Crystal Lee Sutton in the 1970s. This film was released in 1979, a time in which mill workers in the South were struggling in the cotton mills of the J. P. Stevens company. During this time, labor unions were both supported and feared, as many workers felt that they would lose their job if a union existed in the mill, and would rather work for poor pay than no pay at all. This film is told from the workers point of view, developing sympathy from the audience as it authentically  portrays the inhumane working conditions in the mill, and the daily struggle of the laborers.

Several times throughout the film, there are scenes inside of the textile mill. During a majority of the movie the audience can hear the raw sounds in the scene, such as the racket of the machines or the silence of counting union voting papers. Music is rarely used, and the absence of it really allows the viewer to be taken into that moment with Norma Rae. The harsh conditions of working in the mill are beautifully depicted, as the workers must yell to one another to hear, and the machines are so loud in the film it even bothers the ears of the viewer.

The poor working conditions along with the mistreatment of mill workers allow this movie to carry a pro-union message. Sympathy is developed for the workers, as the audience sees them struggle to make ends meet, while being over worked and underpaid. This film gives a voice to the weak as Norma Rae is an underdog standing up for herself and her co-workers to bring about justice in the mill. Additionally, because Norma Rae is a woman she is considered even more inferior in society, but still succeeds in winning over those in power (the company). Because of Norma’s gender, many argue that this film also creates a feminist message.

Norma Rae is a feisty and independent woman, having children out of wedlock, and continually dating around. She is not a typical housewife, and she gets angry when her new husband asks her to iron, cook, and clean. She is a laborer, fighting for fair rights in the mill, and because of her gumption many view her as a feminist. (Hollywood tends to slant her character as one.) However, I do not view Norma Rae as a feminist, since she is fighting for everyone in the mill- women, men, blacks, whites, old, and young. Feminists stand up for female rights, but to say that Norma Rae is a feminist diminishes her influence. She is not simply a feminist, but rather an American citizen standing up for her rights of proper treatment. It is bothersome that whenever there is a strong female lead in a movie that that woman becomes a feminist. Can’t women speak their mind without being labeled? Feminist or not, Norma Rae is an inspiring woman who stands up for what she believes. Her courage throughout the film makes her a strong leading character, and a kind of woman that Hollywood should showcase more often.

 

The Voiceless

Race relations during the mid 1900’s continued to be abysmal as African Americans fought for their civil rights, without success. Blacks were heavily discriminated against, as segregation prevailed, and the KKK threatened lives solely based on a darker skin color. The films Mississippi Burning and Malcolm X both describe the civil rights struggle during the mid 1900’s, each contributing varying perspectives on black versus white race relations.

In Mississippi Burning, whites are brought to the forefront of the film as they are shown as ruthless and intimidating individuals. The white men of the South are depicted as prejudice murderers, who run around town threatening any black person they see. Meanwhile, the white Northerners come in to town devoid of racial prejudice, to fight for black civil rights. This film focuses on the power and salvation that white men can provide, allowing the FBI agents and KKK intimidation to be the primary conflict in the film rather than civil rights. The blacks in the film are rarely given a voice, and treated as victims in the margins of society.

On the contrary, Malcolm X brings African Americans to the forefront of the film. Whites disappear into the background as blacks stand up for themselves and demand civil rights. This film allows blacks to be their own saviors and powerful against the whites, rather than simply victims. Civil rights become a key theme throughout the film, as blacks are portrayed as ordinary citizens dealing with unwarranted hostility.

A primary message portrayed harmoniously throughout both films is the importance to learn history through multiple perspectives. In Mississippi Burning, the character Mrs. Pell recalls what she was taught as a child. She says, “Hatred isn’t something you’re born with. It gets taught. At school, they said segregation what’s said in the Bible… Genesis 9, Verse 27. At 7 years of age, you get told it enough times, you believe it.” History is taught from a white perspective, and is skewed in order to favor white supremacy. In the film Malcolm X, Malcolm also learns that white and black history may not be accurately taught. Since American history is taught from a white perspective, Malcolm claims that it develops a “slave mentality” in the mind of black Americans. Each proceeding generation is taught from this white point of view, continuing the racial divide between blacks and whites. In order to fight for black equality, America needs to relearn history from an unbiased perspective, educating themselves from multiple viewpoints.

Fear, Sex, and Politics

After the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 another Cold War ensued, paralyzing America with  fear of the spread of communism. This Red Scare caused all of American society to be crippled with fear from the unknown enemy. It was America’s belief that anyone could be a communist, and no one could be trusted. This paranoia of American society became the storyline for many Hollywood movies during that time, such as Dr. Strangelove, Apocalypse Now, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Fear and paranoia is a clear theme between all three of these films. In Dr. Strangelove, nuclear warfare is at the forefront, potentially wiping out human existence. This film was released two years after the Cuban Missile Crisis, portraying the chaos and reality of potential nuclear disaster. This film shows the miscommunication and misallocation of authority in government during this time, as nuclear bombing is improperly ordered on Russia.

Apocalypse Now and Invasion of the Body Snatchers also portray this chaos and lack of authority. In Apocalypse Now none of the soldiers really know who they are fighting against, as all Vietnamese become threats, whether civilians or the Viet Cong. There is no order of authority as all the soldiers seemingly obey their own instructions, without guidance. The psychological depth in this film allows the audience to witness the confusion, paranoia, and mental/emotional toll of the Vietnam War on American soldiers.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers also captures this paranoia, as anyone can unknowingly become converted since the pods hatch while a person is sleeping. One must be awake and aware at all times in order to not be changed. This film is based on a book written in 1955, where the Red Scare was arguably at it’s peak in America. No one can be trusted, not even your best friend. This film fall into a science fiction genre, but the underlying message of paranoia and a constant state of fear was a reality in American society during the 1950’s to the 1970’s.

Another theme throughout all three films is the liberation of female sexuality during the 1960’s and 70s. During this time, women were no longer only considered property of men, but empowered to be sexual beings and sexually expressive as well. In Dr. Strangelove the only female character in the movie is a sexy secretary, or a “sexretary” as my boyfriend would call it. This character is obviously not offering her services by answering phone calls, but in many other ways.

The Playboy show in Vietnam during the war is shown in Apocalypse Now. This scene in the film actually occurred during the real war, as women were flown out to dance around in risqué outfits for male viewing and pleasure. Lastly, in Invasion of the Body Snatchers the main female character, Elizabeth, shows her breasts in two scenes. I was shocked that this film was rated PG when there were topless scenes, today that would be considered R. This brought to my attention the relaxed portrayal of female sexuality during this time, as these decades were a time for sexual expression and freedom.

The “Good War?”

D-day is an event in history that every American child grows up learning as the heroic battle and tipping point of World War II. In the films The Longest Day and Saving Private Ryan, the audience sees images of American soldiers storming the beaches of Normandy courageously fighting against the Germans. Most of these soldiers are depicted as those willingly fighting and dying for their country, exuding patriotism and loyalty. These soldiers were fighting not only against Hitler’s dictatorship, but also communism. The United States, as well as the others in the Allied Forces, rescued France from the oppressive control of the Germans, dubbing this war as “the people’s war.” (This concept of “saving” others is bluntly in the film title, Saving Private Ryan.) However, was World War II really fought by willing soldiers? Did patriotism prevail universally during the war?

The Longest Day (1962) and Saving Private Ryan (1998) glorify World War II
and according to Howard Zinn, even promote war, by depicting heroic patriotism in American soldiers. While both films exude patriotism, The Longest Day takes it a step further to promote this war as the “good war” by portraying not only American patriotism, but British, Irish and French loyalty as well, coming together as the Allied Forces. In this film, the French gladly welcome the incoming soldiers, laughing and bringing champagne to the war front for the Americans.

Additionally, the initial massacre at D-day is not shown violently, as there is no blood or gore throughout the whole film.

The battle scenes are also shown from aerial views, removing the audience from the devastation of death. In these ways, this film clearly supports World War II as the “good war”, fought for the people by courageous soldiers.

Saving Private Ryan also shows patriotism in war, but only by American soldiers, as minorities and other soldiers in the Allied Forces are not shown. However, the idea of patriotism and meaning of war is also questioned throughout the film. In the opening scene of the film, Spielberg shows the fear of the soldiers, as well as the inexperienced youth in the war. This scene still shows the patriotism and bravery of the soldiers for being involved in the war, but also alludes to the fact that many of these men were drafted and fearful of war. During World War II, over ten million men were drafted into the war. This fact is rarely discussed, because it would show that some protested against the war, and loyalty was not universal.

Spielberg again questions patriotism and the intentions of war when the crew chosen to find Private Ryan begins to complain about their position in war. Private Jackson states that he should be used to fight, not to find some other soldier, questioning why he is in the war if not being used to kill Hitler. This comment causes Captain Miller to sarcastically say that Private Jackson should be saying, “This is an excellent mission, sir, with an extremely valuable objective, sir,  worthy of my best efforts, sir. Moreover… I feel heartfelt sorrow for the mother of Private James Ryan and am willing to lay down my life and the lives of my men…” showing that obedience and patriotism is what every soldier should portray regardless of his personal thoughts. Soldiers are usually seen as loyal, brave, dedicated individuals, but a few times throughout the film Spielberg shows them as real people, with emotions and doubt, fearful and confused of war, rather than machine-like, blood thirsty men.

 

The violence and cinematography in Saving Private Ryan depict the devastation of D-day, shocking the audience with gore. This gore is brutal to watch, but allows for a more accurate portrayal of the massacre on Omaha beach. The camera angles used in the film are level with the soldiers, placing the audience in the battle, feeling and seeing the tragedies of war. With these scenes, Spielberg does not only show this war as the “good war,” but also a war of doubt, of fear, of destruction, of patriotism, and of bravery.

Overall, these films depict World War II as the “good war,” rescuing an oppressed Europe from Hitler’s dictatorship. War is glorified in these films as patriotic soldiers willingly die for a significant cause. Whether the audience believes this classic American tale is up to the viewer.

The American Dream

The Grapes of Wrath is a novel written by John Steinbeck (1939) and a film directed by John Ford (1940), that tells a story of a family from the mid-west traveling to California for work during the Great Depression. This family, the Joad’s, as well as many others in the mid-west are driven out of their homes, because the government takes over their land. With nowhere to turn, these “Okies” head out west to California as there is promise of work and establishing a life there. Steinbeck encapsulates the idea of the “American Dream” in his novel, and depicts the “hollowness of the ‘American Dream’ of individualism and material success” during the Great Depression (Brinkley 224).The constant misfortunes of the Joad family show the fleeting idea of the American Dream, and the novel even suggests that it does not exist. The film adapts a similar storyline to the novel, however the end of the film shows that the American Dream endures with hard work, perseverance and strength – depicted by the Joad family. Who does the Joad family represent and why did Ford chose to change the ending?

The Joad family is from Oklahoma, known by many people as “Okies.” Throughout the film, the Okies are portrayed as unrefined, rowdy, and now homeless individuals, without a sense of direction. When this family travels to California and their car breaks down, the mechanics talk about this family saying “human beings wouldn’t live the way they do…so miserable,” stating that the Okies are hardly humans, living in their current condition. This statement also accuses the Okies that they are homeless and underprivileged because they choose to be, not because they have had their land stolen from underneath them. In this way,  those in the film do not sympathize with the Okies, but rather look down upon them. This  lack of sympathy from others in the film as well as the hardships the Joad family endures creates sympathy from the audience. Ford first creates sympathy in the beginning of the film when the government evicts families from their properties, taking land from the Okies that had been in the family for decades. The Joad family is relatable and wholesome,  allowing this family to represent the common person, representing us. This family’s journey can be similar to our own, as they search for the American Dream, encountering many hardships on the way.

Steinbeck tries to encompass the meaning of the Great Depression, as he continually breaks down the Joad family and persistently displays their misfortunes and fleeting dreams, diminishing any hope. Steinbeck wanted to portray the despair and rage of the migrants during the Great Depression, showing the plight of those from the Dust Bowl. Ford wanted to stay true to Steinbeck’s representation of the migrants, but changed the ending to depict hope of a successful future, suggesting that the American Dream is possible. The last scene of the film is Ma Joad’s monologue, talking about survival and success because “we’re the people,” stating that anyone can achieve the American Dream if they try hard enough. It is likely that Ford changed this ending because America was still going through the Great Depression, and therefore he wanted to create an uplifting film, to give the audience hope for a better future. He also likely chose to have Ma Joad as the main focus of strength in the film to symbolize female empowerment. 1940 was just a year before America went to war in World War II, when women began working in the factories, and many women had to work during the Great Depression to help their families survive. Ma Joad symbolizes the audacity women possess, and empowers women during a time in history that most women were still oppressed.

This film captures the American narrative during the Great Depression, a tale of struggle and despair for many Americans. It depicts the lack of structure in society, creating chaos and fear. However, despite the many hardships endured during this time, the film also creates an uplifting story of survival, and hope for a better future after the Depression. Ford’s message in the film shows the panic of those struggling to survive, but with hard work and perseverance anyone can achieve the American Dream because “we’re the people.”

Slavery and the Civil War

Slavery: How were the slaves represented?

All the slaves throughout the films were shown as inferior to white people, as their behaviors all represented inferiority and submissiveness, such as their lack of education and proper English, as well as complete obedience to their masters.

In the film, Gone with the Wind, slaves were not as prominent to the film as the other two, but rather they were in the background. The slaves were only shown a few times, other than Mammy, and depicted as typically happy in their household. This film did not show the brutality of whites against their slaves, but rather solely depicted the social hierarchy between the two races. This film was written from a white southern woman’s point of view, and so the movie tends to focus more on the war and the terror from living in a war zone rather than slavery.

Slavery was most brutally depicted in 12 Years a Slave. This movie is based on a book written in 1853 by Solomon Northup. Therefore, this film is mainly represented from a black slave’s perspective, and does not shy away from showing the raw truth of slavery in painfully long scenes. This personal account of slavery is the most authentic of the three films. The slaves in this movie are constantly beaten and harassed for no reason, and there are hardly any moments of joy in the film. Rather than all the slaves being uneducated, 12 Years a Slave has an educated and free black man as the main character, and then shows what happens when he is stripped of his identity entirely. Solomon Northup, the main slave, has to train himself to be submissive and uneducated in order to not get killed or beaten by the slave owners.

Lastly, slavery in Django Unchained was similar to 12 Years a Slave, but then with added dramatic Hollywood flair to the film as well. This movie shows the intensity and brutality of slavery, yet Tarantino makes Django an untouchable, former slave, and bad-ass hero. Many accounts of slavery are accurate – the terror, beating, and lonely life of slaves – however there are also dramatized events that did not necessarily occur, such as Mandingo fighting, or ones that were less common practice, such as runaway slaves getting eaten by dogs.

Violence: Impact of the use of violence

Violence of slavery is depicted differently throughout each film. In Gone with the Wind, there is hardly any violence towards the slaves, other than one slap by Scarlett. The slaves in this movie are talked down to, but are not physically abused. In 12 Years a Slave, the violence is most intense in my opinion. The scenes show the physical devastation of the slaves on a daily basis – the lashings, hangings, rape, etc. This film lingers on these scenes for longer than the average person would like, creating a brutal impact to hit the audience. The violence in Django Unchained could be considered most violent of the movies, given the amount of blood and gore in the film. However, many of these scenes were over dramatic and almost comical, where the impact of violence is not as depressing to watch. The violence still allowed the audience to see the devastating physical affects slaves had to endure, but 12 Years a Slave had the most intense and graphic imagery for violence against slaves.

Accuracy: Which films are most historically accurate?

12 Years a Slave seems to be the most historically accurate. This film is based on an autobiography from a slave during the 1800’s, and therefore tells a real story about the memoirs of a slave. The treatment of slaves and intensity of slave owners is accurately portrayed in this film, as this movie does not shy away from exposing the entire, brutal truth. Gone with the Wind tells a story of the Civil War from a Southerner’s perspective, and this film is more about Scarlett’s love affairs rather than history. This film is not historically accurate but rather for entertainment. Lastly, Django Unchained has many historical accuracies, such as slave treatment, their fear of their owners, dogs eating runaway slaves, and even the use of the “n word.” However, the slang, music, dramatized violence, and storyline are not historical. This movie provides an entertaining spin on slavery, allowing the audience to see the injustice of slavery, as well as enjoying a Hollywood story.

Memory: How important is our historical memory of Civil War in relation to the making of these films?

The historical memory of the Civil War and slavery at the movie was made influenced heavily on the context of slavery in the films. The first of these films made was Gone with the Wind, released in 1939. The slavery portrayed in this film, as mentioned above, is mild compared to the more modern films, as the slaves seem to be happy working for rich white families. During the 1930’s in America, there was still a lot of segregation and discrimination against blacks, and therefore the historical memory of slavery during those days was not fully understood, and the social hierarchy of blacks and whites portrayed in the film was still present when the film was released.

Modern day historical memory of the Civil War and slavery is very different than past ideologies. Today, discrimination is outlawed, and America strives to become a society of equality. America still has a long way to go before achieving equal opportunity for all, however, since Barack Obama became the first black president in 2009, African Americans have come one step closer to equality. As America’s ideologies change, so does the understanding of slavery and the Civil War. Today, Americans remember slavery as a despicable form of power, and the Civil War as a step toward emancipation from injustice. Both 12 Years a Slave and Django Unchained were made in the past couple years, 2013 and 2012, and so the directors had the knowledge and truth of slavery, and sought to expose it in their films.

Context: What is the context of film’s creation?

As previously stated, Gone With the Wind was the first of these films to be developed. During this period in time, 1939, the Great Depression was still going on, but as World War II began, the economy started to turn around toward positive change. During this time there was still strict segregation between blacks and whites, and therefore this film does not show the wrong-doings of whites or try to create sympathy toward black slaves. Rather, this film depicts the hardships of a white family during the Civil War, and the terrors that came with being in a war zone. Likely because the Great Depression was slowly ending, this film wanted to provide entertainment in an otherwise devastating decade, choosing to focus on topics other than oppressed slaves, especially since blacks were not fully accepted into American society yet.

By 2007, Quentin Tarantino wanted to create a film about the Civil War, which eventually led to the making of Django Unchained. Tarantino thoroughly researched the war and slavery in order to have full understanding of this time period, and wanted to add western flair to the film. During the inception of this film, Barack Obama was elected as president, and again reelected in 2012. I speculate that this could have helped prompt Tarantino’s vision of telling a story of an African American underdog (slave) becoming a hero.

Some people believe that since the election of a black president, movies about blacks and slavery have become pop culture. Whether true or not, another movie about slaves was released by 2013. Steven McQueen wanted to make a film about slavery, and when his partner discovered Solomon Northup’s autobiography, McQueen was eager to make his story of 12 Years a Slave known. McQueen took Northup’s memoirs and plastered them on the big screen, trying to portray the raw, untold truth about slavery.

Script: How did the adaption of script portray slavery in the film?

Both Gone with the Wind and Django Unchained were written and directed by white Americans, some even from the South. Gone with the Wind was originally a book written in 1936, and Quentin Tarantino wrote Django Unchained just a few years ago. Because white Americans wrote all the original scripts and screenplays, these films lack the true perspective of slavery. These stories are not told from an actual account of a slave, and therefore had the liberty to add Hollywood “truth” and omit potential facts.

On the other hand, 12 Years a Slave adopted the script from Solomon Northup’s memoirs in 1853, before the Civil War. This story tells the factual accounts of slavery from a black slave’s perspective in the South. In this film the portrayal of slavery seems to be the most accurate, as McQueen does not shy away from the black perspective.

Pocahontas: Disney’s Reality

When I think of a Disney movie, I think of a film that will be fun and light-hearted, typically with a romantic and “feel-good” story line. When I watch a Disney movie, I see a story full of hope and promise, entertaining and endearing. However, I do not think of Disney movies as having any ounce of reality in them. And when a Disney movie reflects historical accounts, the factual story versus the Disney story vary tremendously.

For example, Pocahontas tells the tale of the young Native American girl, Pocahontas, and the  powerful Englishman, John Smith. The English invaded American soil under the order of King James to try to find gold and become rich. This band of Englishmen, called The Virginia Company bombarded the shores of Virginia and made the first permanent American settlement by the English, called Jamestown. Smith was taken captive by the Powhatan tribe and was about to be clubbed to death by the chief – who was also Pocahontas’ father – before Pocahontas stepped in and saved his life. This gesture allowed for a short lived alliance between the Native Americans and the English, as they traded goods and coexisted for a time. This is the basic story told both by Disney as well as historical record, but these facts are the extent of the similarities. Disney went on to twist every other historical fact in order to appeal to children as a form of entertainment.

Disney depicts The Virginia Company as a crew of sailors and hard laborers, when in fact they were aristocrats. This English crew was not a group of uneducated and untidy individuals as the film suggests. Additionally, in the film, Kocoum is portrayed as a man of high rank, a brave warrior in the Native American tribe, who was killed by the English. However in reality, he was not of high status and was not killed, but ended up marrying Pocahontas after Smith and his crew left America. Lastly, the most dramatic stretch from historical truth that Disney created is the romance between Pocahontas and John Smith. Most of the film portrays a romantic relationship between the two, and the drama that comes from their inability to be together. Disney creates a story of the strong white male, and the exotic, compassionate female who fall in love at first sight but can never be together because of their vast differences and backgrounds. This sappy love story between Smith and Pocahontas was entirely cultivated by Disney, however history does describe these two as friends. When Smith first met Pocahontas he was around 27 years of age while she was only 12. According to historical record, they never had a romance, but she did save his life and help the English, and so they did become friends. They treated each other with respect, but did not engage in anything further.

The audience of this film is young children, as this is typically Disney’s target market. With this in mind, is it okay to stretch historical truth in a Disney film? In my opinion, I think it is fine to stray from the facts to a certain extent. I think Pocahontas creates its own reality a little bit too much, but it still teaches the audience a portion of American history and the brutality but also potential relationships the Native Americans and Englishmen had. Everyone loves a cliché love story, and so I  understand why this storyline was added in to the film. However, if facts are so skewed from the historical record that it changes the story entirely or causes a different outcome than what actually happened, I do not think that that is appropriate. The love story created in this film is harmless, and overall the film depicts many of the important key points correctly. It is important to engage the mind of young audiences through entertaining stories, and sometimes that means bending the historical truth.

Sources:

history.com, nps.gov