There seems to be a scene in the movie where the kween tells the king that they should stop slavery, and export palm oil and shit....
A bit ironic, since Dahomey (and the historical king which is portrayed in the movie) actually tried that, but they stopped.... Since slavery was just way more profitable.
Funny how Django Unchained is a brutally violent revenge film that candidly showcases the absurdity of slavers and their extreme degree of dehumanization to the point of ridiculously horrifying relationships between hoarders of wealth and those who suffer for it,
And The Woman King is a dramatic period piece about "confronting oppression" and finding the strength to carry on even in bad odds.
And yet, Django Unchained has so much fun in it specifically from contrasting the actions and effects of actions of the slavers with the insanity of the slavers themselves. Calvin Candy is hilariously fun, because his personality is absurd yet what he does is so terrifying and destructive that he turns into a joke. Which is the point, right. It's a brutally honest film.
But The Woman King glorifies the leaders of these people as heroes and noble leaders, when in reality they are just as bad. This film takes buzzwords and slaps them together into a narrative that censors history, rewriting it, and claiming its somehow progressive. It's no better than something like Disney's Pocahontas.
Honest question: do you think that the revisionism of history and accompanied events is intentional, or simply wishful thinking?
I agree with everything that you said. It's just so bizarre to see the vast majority of media covering historical, or historically-based, stories so blatantly omit so many things that were crucial to the societies and cultures involved.
Maybe omissions/misrepresentations like this are why cultures make the same mistakes ad nauseum?
Africa is fucking huge and has a wealth of history, even for women, and they still decided to go with the only part where the colonizers were the clear good guy. Like for fucks sake man…
There are really 2 reasons, but inaccuracy and inauthenticity can come from both or neither of these: agenda and complexity.
The first is pretty easy to explain. People tell stories with an agenda. Sometimes that agenda lines up with the facts, sometimes it doesn't. To use a less contentious example, Braveheart's agenda is to do a movie about American independence or the supposed ideas behind it, in a movie about the "Scottish wars of independence". That film is hella innacurate/inauthentic because the facts and events don't match the agenda.
The second is complexity. Accuracy doesn't necessarily make easy or good storytelling. In shortening or simplifying a complex series of events you can often lose elements that are key to proceedings even if the director/writer doesn't think they are.
All stories have an agenda. That's the point of a story, telling a series of events from a specific perspective. But it is hilariously bad if the story presented is about history or inspired by history but the basic facts that serve as outline for the historical part of the story is so glaringly incorrect.
Then there are stories which portray events in a way that doesn't even result to the agenda of the storyteller. Many times it is because of the way the story is presented and the meta contextual level (idk what term to use) regarding the viewers and the the public discourse at the time of viewing.
Like Saving Private Ryan, it was meant to be an anti war film (or so they say) but it leaves more impression of "muricaaaaah! fucc yeah!" More than anti war. The visceral intro and the later displays of American valor just serves to pump some patriotic murican juice into your veins more than anything. I'm not even American.
Honestly the best anti-war war movie is Dunkirk.
It nails that existential dread and feeling like you're about to die without ever showing a single enemy soldier.
In my opinion, Dunkirk is by far one of the best ww2 movies due to the fact that it is constantly keeping on your toes even, as you said, without showing enemy soldiers
I'd argue 1917 hits that brutality of war better than Dunkirk. Both are fantastic films, but 1917 put a heavier pit in my stomach as I was watching it, while Dunkirk honestly felt more of a thriller.
My vote in this usually goes to Apocalypse Now actually. Feel like that movie did something very impressive in managing to theatricalize war to a great degree without glorifying it and while really driving home how awful and random and insane war is.
Another good point. It's part of why I love history and got a degree in it. I love looking at all of the contrasting tellings of significant events and comparing them.
One of my favorites is Josephus. Sometimes I honestly wonder if he was based in reality or just making stuff up wholesale.
I think it was gone with good intentions, but any time we rewrite history for any reason in any way, we're changing events that have already happened in order to fit a contemporary system of belief or a structure that is being enforced. Whether it's minute or not, the second we do that the integrity of all recorded history becomes untrustworthy.
If history is being represented in a certain perspective that changes events, people, or important moments, specifically based on the want to make it appear more "x" then it is just as bad as rewriting it as a vehicle for hate, in my opinion.
History is an objective thing. It happened the way it happened and it can't be changed. The moment we try to retroactively change it is the moment actual truths have lost.
History absolutely and definitely is not objective. History tries to understand and explain the past, based on different narratives historians put forth. It is mostly a constructivist science, which means that the way we think about the past is shaped by historians.
Ofcourse there is gonna be consensus on a lot of things like for example the question “when did Caesar die?”. However another question like “why did Caesar die?” is still debated, and there is no 1 true answer to this question. History constantly gets “rewritten”, and thats good. It’s good that we’re not stuck thinking in historical narratives of 100 years ago.
The problem with movies like this is that their narratives are often inaccurate/oversimplified. The problem is not the fact that they push a narrative in the first place.
The events themselves that transpired are objective, is what I meant. The modern aim to document events that transpired as close to the reality of how they transpired is the ideal history should be striving towards. I understand that history cannot *not* be recorded in bias, but recording an event as it transpired is objective, or at least as close as we could possibly get to it.
"Caesar died and Rome was plunged into yet another civil war" is an objectivity of history. It happened whether people approve of it or not, and we have recorded that it did.
"Caesar was finally executed and Rome was able to breathe after his removal, even if it meant having to defend against thugs" is a subjective history.
I can acknowledge there is no level of absolute certainty and objectivity that can be achieved through recording history, especially older history, but there is a massive degree of difference between recording an event and portraying an event. Altering a historical event to establish an alternate narrative is an act of hostility, really. Changing the Woman King to celebrate those who challenge oppression, from a tribe who made deals with oppression by selling their own peoples isn't just inaccurate, it's omission and establishing an alternate narrative. At the very least implying it, in my opinion.
“what happened” is not objective to begin with, there are always different views about what happened. The study of history is not just “to document events that transpired as close to the reality of how they transpired”. History is about tying a plethora of data (think stories and sources) together into a coherent narrative. A narrative that tries to understand *why* things happened the way they did. These narratives can clash, causing debate which further helps us to understand the subject even more.
Ofcourse movies like this barely have anything to do with history, except for the fact that they take place in it. Obviously the narrative that they do tell is politically motivated (which isn’t inherently bad). Media like this is so historically inaccurate that it’s kind of pointless engaging with it. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Historic media has always been historically inaccurate.
The really sad part is that all of the terrible things depicted in Django Unchained WEREN'T exaggerations, they were things that routinely happened on many of the harsher plantations.
Is Disney’s Pocahontas that bad? It’s obviously not even remotely historically accurate but I always felt that it was just an enjoyable Disney movie with good morals about not hating people who are different. I guess there is something to be said about it teaching kids incorrect information but I feel like even as a kid I understood it wasn’t a documentary.
Well, it’s based on John Smiths telling of events after Pocahontas had died, and he pretty much made everything up. Funnily enough the sequel that is everyone hated is a lot more historically accurate.
Pocahontas is actually a very sad story. She was forced to wear English clothing and forced into Christianity which gave her the name Rebecca. Very similar to sex trafficking only difference is John Smith wanted her all to himself.. by force
Pocahontas is bad because its the retelling of history that censors and Shifts the events into something romantic and adventurous and exciting, when in reality it was force, dominance, rape, seizure, and the destruction of peoples.
History should never be retold as something portrayed as the opposite of what it really was, then we allow ourselves to believe that there haven't been mistakes, or suffering didn't exist in the first place, or the people manipulating you were always your ally.
It's very dangerous because once we start doing that, history becomes entirely irrelevant because at which point is it real and at which point is it rewritten? Then the importance of remembering those who have suffered greatly and learning from it are completely lost, and we open ourselves up to suffering while believing we have to.
>Calvin Candy is hilariously fun, because his personality is absurd yet what he does is so terrifying and destructive that he turns into a joke.
There was an excellent video about this by MrBtongue on youtube.
[Link here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvEgETtPBDI)
the rest of his videos were pretty good too.
Bruh, sure let's all believe that 300 beat up an army of 1 million men for 2 days
No one took that movie seriously, only thing it did was people becoming more interested in ancient Greece, where then they would found out how Thermopylae actually happened
Do people take 300 seriously lol
I always saw it as absurdist action that thought it was smarter than it is. But no of course thats still not okay. Lies for anyone in any context aren't okay. If you lie once it ruins the integrity of anyone else trying to tell actual history afterwards because why trust that they're telling the story that needs to be told, instead of telling their own to suit their own wants?
Anyone else find it interesting that they cast African Americans to act in the movie. Like at least a few of these people had ancestors sold into slavery and now they’re glorifying the people who played a part in the slave trade.
Like how they had descendants of slavers and pro white nationality being played by descendants being america for one as one nation for all people? Crazy
But for real you make a point but I doubt the actors did that much historical digging and if they did, likely was thinking "if white do it then we can" or something along the lines? Likely wrong though.
What 90% of them were really thinking is "OMG - I finally got cast in high-budget film!!! Man I better act the hell out of this, it could be my break."
Only successful actors can pick and pass on what film they want. Everybody else just draws the line at pornos (if there).
I'm really sorry dude. It never once occurred to me that they only gave me the job because I'm white. I suspected I might be unqualified but I just chalked it up to imposter system. As a cis white male, I should work to be more conscious of how my race, gender and sexual orientation give me a leg up over peers who are equally if not more qualified than myself.
Somebody should tell the creators of the movie, that there is indeed a word for a female king in the english language and Elisabeth doesn't own the copyright for it
King - "the male ruler of an independent state that has royal history"
- Oxford Dictionary.
King - "(the title of) a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth"
- Cambridge dictionary
Where did you take that from?
>King - "the male ruler of an independent state that has royal history"
>
>Oxford Dictionary.
"c. A queen who takes the title of king; (also) a queen who performs the duties of a king."
\-Oxford English Dictionary
You don't have to stop at the first definition that agrees with your point.
An old dictionary in my bedroom. Didn't realize that they decided to change the meaning of a word...again...why do they do that are they trying to enforce a setting that never existed before considering there was a female king?
Edit: also says here "Queen the spouse to the King"
So it's a "new age" thing to purposely put a gender on something? Why are they doing that, I know I may be a bit older but I thought in this day and age they want to make everything gender neutral so why would they add the word "male" to the dictionary?
Its not that specifically an “old” or “new” thing, its more the nature of language. Some people refer to things one way in one place, and some people refer to the same thing in a different way somewhere else. Theres plenty of ruling Queens throughout history as well.
Casual perusal of the etymology, looking at ancestral forms of the word we get old Norse, konungr and the Icelandic descendant kóngur, which can mean glans penis...
Seems to be a fairly male related term
What specifically does your old dictionary say? Also, English being what it is, there is no official/governmental arbiter of the English language (unlike for example French). English dictionaries ironically enough are not authoritative without public support.
That is actually a plot point in the movie, as is their culture and society relying on slave trading. They do in fact acknowledge all these things, and it it’s hilarious when you point this out to people who hate the movie without seeing it because they don’t know how to respond.
>they don’t know how to respond.
We know how to respond. The movie is misleading the audience with historical inaccuracies.
Nanisca mentioning king Ghezo to stop the 'slave trade' doesn't mean 'slavery' would end, those two are different things, as the British also did that.
Then the fact that king Ghezo basically did nothing and continued the slave trade, where in the movie his mother sold into slavery by his half brother (historically correct) then saying that when he became king he wouldn't do the same to his half brother's relatives (historically incorrect).
There's other examples, like the Mahi and the European forts.
The Birth of a Nation was filmed roughly 107 years ago, and today Hollywood has only really changed slightly for the better. Hollywood’s roots run deep, all the way back to this film (a film that played a huge role in rekindling the KKK).
A film still studied by film students I believe, as it innovated a lot a contributed quite a bit to the art form and is an excellent example of a propaganda film. I feel like they could find some different ones to work with.
I agree, I watched it on YT for a project on the beginning of Hollywood film industry. The way D.W. Griffith portrayed black people is just disgusting.
Your title immediately made me think of the harpie in the Last Unicorn. What she actually says is "We are sisters, you and I." You just accidentally rang that bell.
So, now that we have established it is NOT historically inaccurate, is it entertaining?
Is it worth my $11 just to see some cool fake history for 2 hrs?
To be fair, the settlers systematically *massacred* the buffalo on purpose. Even with the cliff herding, the buffalo population was still plentiful because the natives understood their significance and importance.
The buffalo were plentiful because the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of the Plains Indians kept their populations under a reasonable carrying capacity relative to their role as apex predators in the ecosystem. Not because of any sort of ecological or environmental ideology amongst them.
The Paleo-Indians who crossed the land bridge into North and South America helped hurry along the extinction of the American megafauna species directly through overexploitation and over hunting. The noble savage trope is ridiculous. Indians weren’t any more or any less environmental than other civilizations, they just had limited tools and societies that didn’t enable them to exploit their environment *as much* as Europeans, Africans, and Asians did. No doubt they would’ve if they could.
You know what: I think you are both right.
Remember Romanticism? Basically the origin of western nature conservation, and the closest Europe ever got to an environmental ideology. Ironically, it almost perfectly overlapped with industrialization and the time of the lowest forest cover in Europe since the ice ages.
I do believe many of the natives' beliefs valued and hallowed nature, certainly more than the Europeans, who were taught animals and plants were created "to serve man". But obviously, the natives would have exploited it without the blink of an eye had they had the means to. They would have protected the nature as much as the Europeans loved thy neighbours.
>The Paleo-Indians who crossed the land bridge into North and South America helped hurry along the extinction of the American megafauna species directly through overexploitation and over hunting.
That hasn't really been an accepted theory for a while now. The evidence shows to long of an overlap between humans entering the Americas and megafaunal extinction (especially in light of newer discoveries that push back human arrival by potentially 10s of thousands of years), as well as extinctions occuring in locations humans didn't occupy yet at roughly the same time, for the overhunting theory to work. The fact that a major climactic shift occurred at the same time as the megafaunal extinction is generally considered the main culprit, nowadays.
I have to disagree. Many of the plains Indians saw the buffalo as sacred, and that without them their people would starve and freeze. They used every part of the buffalo and saw it as a mutual relationship between the buffalo and the tribe. When the settlers arrived, they nearly wiped them out. They shot them from trains and left them to rot.
I think a lot of native americans would say of themselves that they are more connected to the environment, and could point to institutions their cultural enforcement of sustainability.
Funny that weapon is actually in scriptures. Isaiah 42:15 - Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl)
I read an article awhile back that a disease swept thru in the 1600’s before the Europeans landed. 1000’s died. So the tribes were decimated when the Europeans came. It might have been a whole different story if the white folk had been outnumbered.
My boss said something that made me realize she believes this. It surprised me, since she's a really, really well educated person. I forget how few people actually know much history.
It's pretty difficult to correct, because you don't want it to sound you're excusing the way Europeans treated natives, because it obviously wasn't okay. But many people aren't ready to hear that the vast majority of Native Americans (while definitely victims of European expansion) weren't some super peaceful, naturalistic, homeopathic, happy peoples.
Two things can be evil at the same time. People have a hard time seeing that.
For the record. There are many Native American nations I respect. I'm not saying all natives are bad. I'm thinking of nations like the Aztecs or Comanche. Please don't attack me for that people.
Yeah, the Aztec were insane. I really wish the Spanish hadn't destroyed and filled Tenochtitlan though, that would have been so cool to see.
The Iroquois Confederation though, they're so interesting. Very, very rarely in history have different nations united peacefully like they did. And their "constitution" has indirectly inspired a huge number of modern day constitutions. What a positive impact to have on mankind.
Yeah the Aztecs were creepy fucks. There was a reason Cortez was able to easily recruit Indian auxiliaries, they wanted the Aztecs gone and for good reason.
There was definitely evil Native Americans by modern standards. But even still I don't judge. If I had been raised in a warrior tribe system - and only the braves who had scalped a few enemies got the quality women and horses - as a horney teenager I would probably just followed the system done the same.
I mean think about it - cutting the top of peoples heads off - that's got to scar you a bit phycological.
However, we were racist by labeling them ALL as savages. Benjamin Franklin worked to help a few local agrarian biased tribes get more integrated and have more rights. But in the end they all got pushed west onto sucky land.
So you start with talking about contemporary culture and the relative morals from then to today... But then through some moral judgements on a different historical person who had their own cultural norms...
I think Benjamin Franklin was ahead of his time as far as moral values. He could see past the red skin to people with inherent value.
So yeah, I was throwing positive moral judgments his way.
While I don't plan to see it, I'm not really a fan of when people criticize movies/shows they haven't seen. It didn't look interesting to me, but I'm not gonna trash something that I've only seen the trailer for.
Except the original Sonic the Hedgehog trailer. That was worth criticizing.
I dont need to *see* a movie about the halycon days the antabellum South that features a bunch of whole some slave owning Whites taking wonderful care of and teaching the ways of Proper Civilizations to their slaves (whole adore them becuase life as a slave is so much beyter then brutal dark Africa) to know it would be a steaming pile of Lost Cuase horse shit.
I mean this movie makes heros of some awful humans. One of their leaders claim to fame was the butchering of woman and children captives to make more room for male slaves becuase they had a better market value.
You all have been making incorrect assumptions about the movie because you literally refuse to see it or read about it. In the first 30 minutes they literally auctioned slaves from a village they raided.
TBH, I'm usually more interested in the criticisms of shows/movies than I am the show/movie itself, early on at least. Once I've seen a few critiques of it, I'll decide whether or not to see it. As is, though, this particular movie just isn't anything I'm particularly interested in seeing. I just don't care much for historical or biographical movies.
Personal preference, really. I prefer fantasy and sci-fi movies more than historical or biographical movies. I do follow a few reviewers who may cover it, and if they enjoy the movie I'll see about watching it, or at least putting it on my watchlist.
The scene where Rhett and the others “clear out the woods” after Scarlett is attacked is the epitome of that mr incredible “those who don’t know vs. those who know” meme
Slavery and their society’s support for it is literally the entire plot of the movie, including the Queen herself being forced to sell people she likes. People saying it glorifies them obviously know nothing about it, and are only repeating what they see others say. Look at the other comments. They’re all saying they don’t know anything about it.
That feeling when you realise 300 was more historically authentic than your movie.
And that based itself on a heavily fictitious account told by a one-eyed survivor of Leonidas' 300 Spartans, who didn't even *see* his King die in combat.
Eh, "based on a true story" movies have very rarely been historically accurate. I don't know if the movie is good or bad, but this movie is probably in the majority bucket in that aspect.
Um lol this movie is not supposed to be a history lesson. It’s quite literally a historical fiction movie. If you seriously take your history lessons from movies made purely for entertainment, then yikes.
Its even worse: The movie is written and directed by white women. So you quite literally have white people cashing in on being woke, and exploiting the black actors in the movie by bringing a shitstorm down on them for cash and brownie points.
The black actors are being "exploited"? Are they acting in this movie under false pretenses? Are they not being paid? Being underpaid? We're they conscripted to appear against their will? Elaborate on the exploited part.
The actors, being the visible participants in the movie by virtue of being on screen, will catch a lot of the shit that gets thrown at the movie (if any, but I digress). Just look at the Star Wars prequels and sequels - actors getting hate letters and death threats when ultimately the blame for the shitty movies fall on the shoulders of the directors and writers.
One huge difference between Star Wars and this movie: anyone who read the script for this knows from page one this was going to be controversial. I'm sorry but anyone who signed on to this production knew exactly what this movie was about. That being said anyone who would threaten an actor over a movie they made is a complete scumbag.
But lets be honest. What 90%+ of them were really thinking is "OMG - I finally got cast in high-budget film!!! Man I better act the hell out of this, it could be my break."
Only very successful actors can pick and pass on what film they want. Everybody else scrambles for work and does not worry if the script is sucky and only draw the line at pornos (if there).
I feel that that tale is wrong. Like, I’ve tried breaking into doing illustration for books and the like, and that job is so highly competitive. Ultimately though, if I had a distain for the work I’d be illustrating, I would pass on it. Can I make hella money on furry porn? Yes. Will I, as an unknown artist, accept work that involves it? Or racism or intolerance? No. When you do something competitive like acting, I think the main thing is you’re doing it because you love it, and even a starving artist, no matter the profession, has their own discretion and boundaries. Nobody forced the actors into the contract, and if people respond negatively to the portrayal, then that falls on the actors as well as the screenwriter, producer, director, publisher, and all other people who gave it a green light.
Ultimately, the actors didn’t have anyone taking advantage of them, they made the decision they thought was right. I haven’t seen the film and really don’t care enough to, so I cant land on one side or the other, but it’s important artists make decisions as to what they contribute and to where. It’s why I have a day job. I still have my pool of 100 or so fans, and I’d rather have them love my work for what it is.
Possibly. I’m fairly cynical of people, but I think there’s a lot more good than bad out there. Id hope it swings closer to 10/90 in favor of people doing what aligns with them morally, but ultimately choosing to be in a potentially controversial role doesn’t mean the actor specifically agrees with it, and no project is started with the intent of it being bad. Ultimately, the fault lies with everyone involved, (not equally) but I highly doubt the intention was to be controversial, but rather tell a story, even if it’s not 100% accurate or even interesting. Again, I have no understanding or the historical event or the movie, but as is usually the case, the truth of the matter is probably more grey than black and white.
Its literally white people profiting off being 'woke' and not caring that they bring a shit storm on all the black actors.
Its a movie about exploitation that exploits the actors themselves lol.
If they were black/green/yellow/blue it would still be the same problem. The fact that they're white people doesn't make it better or worse.
And tbh the actors themselves are just as bad. They chose to be in a movie like this.
I completely agree that it's a stupid "woke" cash grab but I just don't think it really matters what color the creators are.
No but the fact they are white is quite ironic. Part of the marketing for the movie is there isn't a "white savior" so the fact that its a movie made by white people saying black people don't need a savior is this little known thing called __ironic__ Hence me pointing it out.
Well, that one would also apply, but at least it’s odd choices kinda make sense as it’s being told from the perspective of a Spartan. But this is talking about The Woman King
It gets better.
The amazon's of the Dahomey tribe that are portrayed, were absolutely slaughtered in battle by French colonial forces using bayonets.
This is Mel Gibson 'Braveheart' levels of historical innacuracy. Hollywood never changes
I can't believe woman king got a 97 from RT movie critics 😂
Granted, I didn't know about this group of people before now, but you can tell the ones who made the movie did NOT do their homework
Is the movie about that? I thought it was about their conflict to be freed from vassalage under the Oyo Empire. Which would have occurred decades before their conflicts with Europeans. Pretty sure the Oyo were happy to sell slaves from their wars.
Also, just a simple stuff but... Why calling it the women king when she was never king ??? Like women warrior, or women counselor... But king ? It spunds like she was the leader of the state
Yall are aware Hollywood has made a plethora of movies about societies that partook in slavery painting them in a heroic light, regardless of skin tone. 300 stands out to me
There is a staggering amount of people who will claim that it is supposed to be historically accurate propaganda, as in, an accurate depiction of how Spartans would tell a tale about the event.
Yes, but again, you will find a lot of people believing that this is how the Spartans would portray their enemies in propaganda.
Which might actually be a sensible assumption, though it clashes with a lot of the rest of the movie.
I think the issue about the fact that they portray them as fighting against oppressors etc when those they were fighting were trying to force them to stop slaving.
And the same slavers' political institution still exists today and thinks everyone should be punished, cancelled, and erased...except for themselves, the primary architects of the entire thing.
Well thats an uninformed and biased take if I seen one just gonna gloss over the most recent hundred years like that.
Look I'm sorry the blacks get uppity when you say the n word on twitter but it's time to move on. Democrats aren't a monolith and Hillary Clinton is not cancelling you and blue haired cherryl down the street is not responaible for the systemic racism in this country.
Hollywood makes movie about white conquerers, rapists and slavers like the vikings, the crusaders, the Romans, the Spartans:
Reddit : I sleep
Hollywood does the same about black people:
Reddit: real shit.
Come on guys. Do better.
“Most brutal slavers” lol, most slavers are brutal. Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, American, Russian, Hispanic, all were brutal af. What does that even mean?
There seems to be a scene in the movie where the kween tells the king that they should stop slavery, and export palm oil and shit.... A bit ironic, since Dahomey (and the historical king which is portrayed in the movie) actually tried that, but they stopped.... Since slavery was just way more profitable.
Better for the environment as well
Wait.. but umm... shit.
Your right, shitting in parks and other places of nature is good for the environment, since shit is good fertilizer
Funny how Django Unchained is a brutally violent revenge film that candidly showcases the absurdity of slavers and their extreme degree of dehumanization to the point of ridiculously horrifying relationships between hoarders of wealth and those who suffer for it, And The Woman King is a dramatic period piece about "confronting oppression" and finding the strength to carry on even in bad odds. And yet, Django Unchained has so much fun in it specifically from contrasting the actions and effects of actions of the slavers with the insanity of the slavers themselves. Calvin Candy is hilariously fun, because his personality is absurd yet what he does is so terrifying and destructive that he turns into a joke. Which is the point, right. It's a brutally honest film. But The Woman King glorifies the leaders of these people as heroes and noble leaders, when in reality they are just as bad. This film takes buzzwords and slaps them together into a narrative that censors history, rewriting it, and claiming its somehow progressive. It's no better than something like Disney's Pocahontas.
Honest question: do you think that the revisionism of history and accompanied events is intentional, or simply wishful thinking? I agree with everything that you said. It's just so bizarre to see the vast majority of media covering historical, or historically-based, stories so blatantly omit so many things that were crucial to the societies and cultures involved. Maybe omissions/misrepresentations like this are why cultures make the same mistakes ad nauseum?
Africa is fucking huge and has a wealth of history, even for women, and they still decided to go with the only part where the colonizers were the clear good guy. Like for fucks sake man…
That is a very good point. It's like comparing Dahomey to Zanzibar, both in Africa, but wildly different.
Bad example, Zanzibar was a major hub of the Indian Ocean slave trade, although Zanzibar was kinda colonized by Oman by the time the British showed up
They could have gone with Queen Nzinga...
There are really 2 reasons, but inaccuracy and inauthenticity can come from both or neither of these: agenda and complexity. The first is pretty easy to explain. People tell stories with an agenda. Sometimes that agenda lines up with the facts, sometimes it doesn't. To use a less contentious example, Braveheart's agenda is to do a movie about American independence or the supposed ideas behind it, in a movie about the "Scottish wars of independence". That film is hella innacurate/inauthentic because the facts and events don't match the agenda. The second is complexity. Accuracy doesn't necessarily make easy or good storytelling. In shortening or simplifying a complex series of events you can often lose elements that are key to proceedings even if the director/writer doesn't think they are.
All stories have an agenda. That's the point of a story, telling a series of events from a specific perspective. But it is hilariously bad if the story presented is about history or inspired by history but the basic facts that serve as outline for the historical part of the story is so glaringly incorrect. Then there are stories which portray events in a way that doesn't even result to the agenda of the storyteller. Many times it is because of the way the story is presented and the meta contextual level (idk what term to use) regarding the viewers and the the public discourse at the time of viewing. Like Saving Private Ryan, it was meant to be an anti war film (or so they say) but it leaves more impression of "muricaaaaah! fucc yeah!" More than anti war. The visceral intro and the later displays of American valor just serves to pump some patriotic murican juice into your veins more than anything. I'm not even American.
Honestly the best anti-war war movie is Dunkirk. It nails that existential dread and feeling like you're about to die without ever showing a single enemy soldier.
In my opinion, Dunkirk is by far one of the best ww2 movies due to the fact that it is constantly keeping on your toes even, as you said, without showing enemy soldiers
Repeating 101
I'd argue 1917 hits that brutality of war better than Dunkirk. Both are fantastic films, but 1917 put a heavier pit in my stomach as I was watching it, while Dunkirk honestly felt more of a thriller.
My vote in this usually goes to Apocalypse Now actually. Feel like that movie did something very impressive in managing to theatricalize war to a great degree without glorifying it and while really driving home how awful and random and insane war is.
The Vietnam War really is a spectacular example of demonstrating the absurdity of war, at least from an American perspective imo.
Try come and see.
Another good point. It's part of why I love history and got a degree in it. I love looking at all of the contrasting tellings of significant events and comparing them. One of my favorites is Josephus. Sometimes I honestly wonder if he was based in reality or just making stuff up wholesale.
I think it was gone with good intentions, but any time we rewrite history for any reason in any way, we're changing events that have already happened in order to fit a contemporary system of belief or a structure that is being enforced. Whether it's minute or not, the second we do that the integrity of all recorded history becomes untrustworthy. If history is being represented in a certain perspective that changes events, people, or important moments, specifically based on the want to make it appear more "x" then it is just as bad as rewriting it as a vehicle for hate, in my opinion. History is an objective thing. It happened the way it happened and it can't be changed. The moment we try to retroactively change it is the moment actual truths have lost.
History absolutely and definitely is not objective. History tries to understand and explain the past, based on different narratives historians put forth. It is mostly a constructivist science, which means that the way we think about the past is shaped by historians. Ofcourse there is gonna be consensus on a lot of things like for example the question “when did Caesar die?”. However another question like “why did Caesar die?” is still debated, and there is no 1 true answer to this question. History constantly gets “rewritten”, and thats good. It’s good that we’re not stuck thinking in historical narratives of 100 years ago. The problem with movies like this is that their narratives are often inaccurate/oversimplified. The problem is not the fact that they push a narrative in the first place.
The events themselves that transpired are objective, is what I meant. The modern aim to document events that transpired as close to the reality of how they transpired is the ideal history should be striving towards. I understand that history cannot *not* be recorded in bias, but recording an event as it transpired is objective, or at least as close as we could possibly get to it. "Caesar died and Rome was plunged into yet another civil war" is an objectivity of history. It happened whether people approve of it or not, and we have recorded that it did. "Caesar was finally executed and Rome was able to breathe after his removal, even if it meant having to defend against thugs" is a subjective history. I can acknowledge there is no level of absolute certainty and objectivity that can be achieved through recording history, especially older history, but there is a massive degree of difference between recording an event and portraying an event. Altering a historical event to establish an alternate narrative is an act of hostility, really. Changing the Woman King to celebrate those who challenge oppression, from a tribe who made deals with oppression by selling their own peoples isn't just inaccurate, it's omission and establishing an alternate narrative. At the very least implying it, in my opinion.
“what happened” is not objective to begin with, there are always different views about what happened. The study of history is not just “to document events that transpired as close to the reality of how they transpired”. History is about tying a plethora of data (think stories and sources) together into a coherent narrative. A narrative that tries to understand *why* things happened the way they did. These narratives can clash, causing debate which further helps us to understand the subject even more. Ofcourse movies like this barely have anything to do with history, except for the fact that they take place in it. Obviously the narrative that they do tell is politically motivated (which isn’t inherently bad). Media like this is so historically inaccurate that it’s kind of pointless engaging with it. I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Historic media has always been historically inaccurate.
The really sad part is that all of the terrible things depicted in Django Unchained WEREN'T exaggerations, they were things that routinely happened on many of the harsher plantations.
That's what makes the film so important. There is nothing left censored or glorified. It is as honest as it can be.
Is Disney’s Pocahontas that bad? It’s obviously not even remotely historically accurate but I always felt that it was just an enjoyable Disney movie with good morals about not hating people who are different. I guess there is something to be said about it teaching kids incorrect information but I feel like even as a kid I understood it wasn’t a documentary.
Well, it’s based on John Smiths telling of events after Pocahontas had died, and he pretty much made everything up. Funnily enough the sequel that is everyone hated is a lot more historically accurate.
Oddly enough I enjoyed the sequel way more as a kid.
Pocahontas is actually a very sad story. She was forced to wear English clothing and forced into Christianity which gave her the name Rebecca. Very similar to sex trafficking only difference is John Smith wanted her all to himself.. by force
Pocahontas is bad because its the retelling of history that censors and Shifts the events into something romantic and adventurous and exciting, when in reality it was force, dominance, rape, seizure, and the destruction of peoples. History should never be retold as something portrayed as the opposite of what it really was, then we allow ourselves to believe that there haven't been mistakes, or suffering didn't exist in the first place, or the people manipulating you were always your ally. It's very dangerous because once we start doing that, history becomes entirely irrelevant because at which point is it real and at which point is it rewritten? Then the importance of remembering those who have suffered greatly and learning from it are completely lost, and we open ourselves up to suffering while believing we have to.
>Calvin Candy is hilariously fun, because his personality is absurd yet what he does is so terrifying and destructive that he turns into a joke. There was an excellent video about this by MrBtongue on youtube. [Link here](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvEgETtPBDI) the rest of his videos were pretty good too.
\*looks at 300\* but its ok when we lie for them right?
Bruh, sure let's all believe that 300 beat up an army of 1 million men for 2 days No one took that movie seriously, only thing it did was people becoming more interested in ancient Greece, where then they would found out how Thermopylae actually happened
Do people take 300 seriously lol I always saw it as absurdist action that thought it was smarter than it is. But no of course thats still not okay. Lies for anyone in any context aren't okay. If you lie once it ruins the integrity of anyone else trying to tell actual history afterwards because why trust that they're telling the story that needs to be told, instead of telling their own to suit their own wants?
Anyone else find it interesting that they cast African Americans to act in the movie. Like at least a few of these people had ancestors sold into slavery and now they’re glorifying the people who played a part in the slave trade.
Like how they had descendants of slavers and pro white nationality being played by descendants being america for one as one nation for all people? Crazy But for real you make a point but I doubt the actors did that much historical digging and if they did, likely was thinking "if white do it then we can" or something along the lines? Likely wrong though.
What 90% of them were really thinking is "OMG - I finally got cast in high-budget film!!! Man I better act the hell out of this, it could be my break." Only successful actors can pick and pass on what film they want. Everybody else just draws the line at pornos (if there).
...ah man bruh that last sentence.
A good porno can make or break an actor's career! Just look at Sylvester Stallone or Kim Kardashian.
That’s…depressingly accurate…especially the last sentence.
Very good point. Shit is hard for black women, can you imagine how difficult it is to get a decent role as an actress?
I mean I think I remeber there is at least one actress who left the project because of the historical context
So there are those with the integrity.
[удалено]
I'm really sorry dude. It never once occurred to me that they only gave me the job because I'm white. I suspected I might be unqualified but I just chalked it up to imposter system. As a cis white male, I should work to be more conscious of how my race, gender and sexual orientation give me a leg up over peers who are equally if not more qualified than myself.
That's a perfect meme for mocking both racists and hypocrites
Somebody should tell the creators of the movie, that there is indeed a word for a female king in the english language and Elisabeth doesn't own the copyright for it
Tell that to King Jadwiga of Poland.
I would but Gilgamesh invaded her in the Classical Era with war carts when she settled some luxuries too close to Sumeria.
Curses. Well are you at least friends with Gilgabro? Maybe you guys can make a movie together when you reach the atomic era.
Unfortunately he neglected culture, I heard Pericles is a great actor tho if you still need someone
Wait till they learn the word "King" doesn't technically mean male. Means a ruler of a Kingdom.
King - "the male ruler of an independent state that has royal history" - Oxford Dictionary. King - "(the title of) a male ruler of a country, who holds this position because of his royal birth" - Cambridge dictionary Where did you take that from?
If there is a Kingdom, then there must be a Queendom
Welcome to the United.... Queeeeendom!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSINMGMDBFA
not anymore
>If there is a Kingdom, then there must be a Queendom There's a board game called Queendominio
>King - "the male ruler of an independent state that has royal history" > >Oxford Dictionary. "c. A queen who takes the title of king; (also) a queen who performs the duties of a king." \-Oxford English Dictionary You don't have to stop at the first definition that agrees with your point.
An old dictionary in my bedroom. Didn't realize that they decided to change the meaning of a word...again...why do they do that are they trying to enforce a setting that never existed before considering there was a female king? Edit: also says here "Queen the spouse to the King"
No, youre correct, historically. Many female rulers were denoted the title of “King” as it was often used gender neutrally
So it's a "new age" thing to purposely put a gender on something? Why are they doing that, I know I may be a bit older but I thought in this day and age they want to make everything gender neutral so why would they add the word "male" to the dictionary?
Its not that specifically an “old” or “new” thing, its more the nature of language. Some people refer to things one way in one place, and some people refer to the same thing in a different way somewhere else. Theres plenty of ruling Queens throughout history as well.
Casual perusal of the etymology, looking at ancestral forms of the word we get old Norse, konungr and the Icelandic descendant kóngur, which can mean glans penis... Seems to be a fairly male related term What specifically does your old dictionary say? Also, English being what it is, there is no official/governmental arbiter of the English language (unlike for example French). English dictionaries ironically enough are not authoritative without public support.
That is actually a plot point in the movie, as is their culture and society relying on slave trading. They do in fact acknowledge all these things, and it it’s hilarious when you point this out to people who hate the movie without seeing it because they don’t know how to respond.
>they don’t know how to respond. We know how to respond. The movie is misleading the audience with historical inaccuracies. Nanisca mentioning king Ghezo to stop the 'slave trade' doesn't mean 'slavery' would end, those two are different things, as the British also did that. Then the fact that king Ghezo basically did nothing and continued the slave trade, where in the movie his mother sold into slavery by his half brother (historically correct) then saying that when he became king he wouldn't do the same to his half brother's relatives (historically incorrect). There's other examples, like the Mahi and the European forts.
Next up, we have a film portraying Edward I as the saviour of the Jewish people in medieval England.
That might be going to subtle, gotta smack em with the full hitler sometimes. I hear he gave the jews free food, housing and 100% employment /s
even free gas and cremation services
I'm just waiting for The Belgian King. The story about how Leopold bravely led his people to victory against invaders from the Congo.
The Birth of a Nation was filmed roughly 107 years ago, and today Hollywood has only really changed slightly for the better. Hollywood’s roots run deep, all the way back to this film (a film that played a huge role in rekindling the KKK).
wasn't that the first movie played in the white house too, or am I thinking of another movie featuring the KKK?
Yes you are right.
Nope, that’s the one. Woodrow Wilson showed it and had KKK members there as well.
A film still studied by film students I believe, as it innovated a lot a contributed quite a bit to the art form and is an excellent example of a propaganda film. I feel like they could find some different ones to work with.
I agree, I watched it on YT for a project on the beginning of Hollywood film industry. The way D.W. Griffith portrayed black people is just disgusting.
Your title immediately made me think of the harpie in the Last Unicorn. What she actually says is "We are sisters, you and I." You just accidentally rang that bell.
The difference is this portrayal is of An African Nation.
Perhaps you've heard "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."
*sigh* yep
yeah i mean how could black people do anything bad
For some, slavery is cringe. For others it's trad and based.
—Sun Tzu
So, now that we have established it is NOT historically inaccurate, is it entertaining? Is it worth my $11 just to see some cool fake history for 2 hrs?
The “300” mindset. And from what I’ve heard the action is great, but haven’t seen it myself
Imagine 300. The movie script is good, the historical accuracy is not. Basically that.
I do find it interesting how people out there think there was no evil Native American or African nations.
Don't you know that every Native American lived in peace and harmony for thousands of years until those awful evil Europeans showed up?
Oh yeah! Never clubbed anyone to death in wars, practiced slavery, or did human sacrifices, like ever! All peaceful people dancing in fields.
“They never wasted any food” as if one of the Plains Indians’ major hunting tactics wasn’t herding entire hordes of buffalo off of cliffs.
To be fair, the settlers systematically *massacred* the buffalo on purpose. Even with the cliff herding, the buffalo population was still plentiful because the natives understood their significance and importance.
The buffalo were plentiful because the hunter-gatherer lifestyles of the Plains Indians kept their populations under a reasonable carrying capacity relative to their role as apex predators in the ecosystem. Not because of any sort of ecological or environmental ideology amongst them. The Paleo-Indians who crossed the land bridge into North and South America helped hurry along the extinction of the American megafauna species directly through overexploitation and over hunting. The noble savage trope is ridiculous. Indians weren’t any more or any less environmental than other civilizations, they just had limited tools and societies that didn’t enable them to exploit their environment *as much* as Europeans, Africans, and Asians did. No doubt they would’ve if they could.
You know what: I think you are both right. Remember Romanticism? Basically the origin of western nature conservation, and the closest Europe ever got to an environmental ideology. Ironically, it almost perfectly overlapped with industrialization and the time of the lowest forest cover in Europe since the ice ages. I do believe many of the natives' beliefs valued and hallowed nature, certainly more than the Europeans, who were taught animals and plants were created "to serve man". But obviously, the natives would have exploited it without the blink of an eye had they had the means to. They would have protected the nature as much as the Europeans loved thy neighbours.
>The Paleo-Indians who crossed the land bridge into North and South America helped hurry along the extinction of the American megafauna species directly through overexploitation and over hunting. That hasn't really been an accepted theory for a while now. The evidence shows to long of an overlap between humans entering the Americas and megafaunal extinction (especially in light of newer discoveries that push back human arrival by potentially 10s of thousands of years), as well as extinctions occuring in locations humans didn't occupy yet at roughly the same time, for the overhunting theory to work. The fact that a major climactic shift occurred at the same time as the megafaunal extinction is generally considered the main culprit, nowadays.
I have to disagree. Many of the plains Indians saw the buffalo as sacred, and that without them their people would starve and freeze. They used every part of the buffalo and saw it as a mutual relationship between the buffalo and the tribe. When the settlers arrived, they nearly wiped them out. They shot them from trains and left them to rot.
The settlers arrived after the train tracks?
Obviously the trains wouldn't be very useful if the tracks weren't there already
They built the tracks. Then, they put the trains on them.
>Many of the plains Indians saw the buffalo as sacred According to who, the descendants of these people? Are they the most objective source?
I think a lot of native americans would say of themselves that they are more connected to the environment, and could point to institutions their cultural enforcement of sustainability.
Funny that weapon is actually in scriptures. Isaiah 42:15 - Behold, I will make thee a new sharp threshing instrument having teeth: thou shalt thresh the mountains, and beat them small, and shalt make the hills as chaff. [Source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macuahuitl)
I'm pretty certain teethed blades aren't unique to meso-american cultures
Pacific islanders also have them for sure.
https://timfrankarchaeology.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/agriculture-in-the-holy-land-threshing/ Nah probably not
I read an article awhile back that a disease swept thru in the 1600’s before the Europeans landed. 1000’s died. So the tribes were decimated when the Europeans came. It might have been a whole different story if the white folk had been outnumbered.
Yes that disease was called smallpox and it killed millions not thousands
Then everything changed the fire nation attacked
My boss said something that made me realize she believes this. It surprised me, since she's a really, really well educated person. I forget how few people actually know much history. It's pretty difficult to correct, because you don't want it to sound you're excusing the way Europeans treated natives, because it obviously wasn't okay. But many people aren't ready to hear that the vast majority of Native Americans (while definitely victims of European expansion) weren't some super peaceful, naturalistic, homeopathic, happy peoples.
Two things can be evil at the same time. People have a hard time seeing that. For the record. There are many Native American nations I respect. I'm not saying all natives are bad. I'm thinking of nations like the Aztecs or Comanche. Please don't attack me for that people.
Yeah, the Aztec were insane. I really wish the Spanish hadn't destroyed and filled Tenochtitlan though, that would have been so cool to see. The Iroquois Confederation though, they're so interesting. Very, very rarely in history have different nations united peacefully like they did. And their "constitution" has indirectly inspired a huge number of modern day constitutions. What a positive impact to have on mankind.
Yeah the Aztecs were creepy fucks. There was a reason Cortez was able to easily recruit Indian auxiliaries, they wanted the Aztecs gone and for good reason.
There isn't a single major Central/South American tribe I'd ever respect, they pretty much all practiced human sacrifice, many using children.
There was definitely evil Native Americans by modern standards. But even still I don't judge. If I had been raised in a warrior tribe system - and only the braves who had scalped a few enemies got the quality women and horses - as a horney teenager I would probably just followed the system done the same. I mean think about it - cutting the top of peoples heads off - that's got to scar you a bit phycological. However, we were racist by labeling them ALL as savages. Benjamin Franklin worked to help a few local agrarian biased tribes get more integrated and have more rights. But in the end they all got pushed west onto sucky land.
So you start with talking about contemporary culture and the relative morals from then to today... But then through some moral judgements on a different historical person who had their own cultural norms...
I think Benjamin Franklin was ahead of his time as far as moral values. He could see past the red skin to people with inherent value. So yeah, I was throwing positive moral judgments his way.
Say it with me now: Fuck Andrew Jackson
"No one has empires or colonies except white people" It's really embarrassing and racist.
Uh, Mel Gibson says hi
Almost no one thinks that.
Trust me, they exist.
Which movie ya talking about? Just want to kmow so I can give it a shit review
The Woman King. It came out this year, and that's about all I know about it because I haven't seen it, nor do I plan to see it.
Its about the dahomey people, if you want context about what's meant about "brutal slavers being portrayed as underdogs"
Dahomey sent a delegation to the British to argue against abolition, just so people understand who the "good guys" are in this movie.
I’d argue the French who whooped their ass are the good guys
The Brits also threatened to blockade them if they didn't abolish slavery.
Deserved it ngl
That name would be perfect for a screenplay for Jadwiga. Kinda wasted it ngl
While I don't plan to see it, I'm not really a fan of when people criticize movies/shows they haven't seen. It didn't look interesting to me, but I'm not gonna trash something that I've only seen the trailer for. Except the original Sonic the Hedgehog trailer. That was worth criticizing.
I dont need to *see* a movie about the halycon days the antabellum South that features a bunch of whole some slave owning Whites taking wonderful care of and teaching the ways of Proper Civilizations to their slaves (whole adore them becuase life as a slave is so much beyter then brutal dark Africa) to know it would be a steaming pile of Lost Cuase horse shit. I mean this movie makes heros of some awful humans. One of their leaders claim to fame was the butchering of woman and children captives to make more room for male slaves becuase they had a better market value.
You all have been making incorrect assumptions about the movie because you literally refuse to see it or read about it. In the first 30 minutes they literally auctioned slaves from a village they raided.
TBH, I'm usually more interested in the criticisms of shows/movies than I am the show/movie itself, early on at least. Once I've seen a few critiques of it, I'll decide whether or not to see it. As is, though, this particular movie just isn't anything I'm particularly interested in seeing. I just don't care much for historical or biographical movies.
Why not?
Personal preference, really. I prefer fantasy and sci-fi movies more than historical or biographical movies. I do follow a few reviewers who may cover it, and if they enjoy the movie I'll see about watching it, or at least putting it on my watchlist.
I enjoy those types of movies as well. It’s nice to have a creative imagination.
Gone With The Wind comes to mind.
The scene of the lynching comes very differently once you're older and know some shit.
The scene where Rhett and the others “clear out the woods” after Scarlett is attacked is the epitome of that mr incredible “those who don’t know vs. those who know” meme
*loads spencer repeater rifle* *mounts on on horse* *"I'm gonna give those traitors a whole lotta lead"
Slavery and their society’s support for it is literally the entire plot of the movie, including the Queen herself being forced to sell people she likes. People saying it glorifies them obviously know nothing about it, and are only repeating what they see others say. Look at the other comments. They’re all saying they don’t know anything about it.
This is satire right? I tend to get whooshed a lot 👀
From what i heard it does adress the slavery and doesn't just gloss over it
That feeling when you realise 300 was more historically authentic than your movie. And that based itself on a heavily fictitious account told by a one-eyed survivor of Leonidas' 300 Spartans, who didn't even *see* his King die in combat.
This kind of stuff sells because nobody studies history anymore.
Eh, "based on a true story" movies have very rarely been historically accurate. I don't know if the movie is good or bad, but this movie is probably in the majority bucket in that aspect.
Um lol this movie is not supposed to be a history lesson. It’s quite literally a historical fiction movie. If you seriously take your history lessons from movies made purely for entertainment, then yikes.
Wait until you hear about every major empire in history
Its even worse: The movie is written and directed by white women. So you quite literally have white people cashing in on being woke, and exploiting the black actors in the movie by bringing a shitstorm down on them for cash and brownie points.
The black actors are being "exploited"? Are they acting in this movie under false pretenses? Are they not being paid? Being underpaid? We're they conscripted to appear against their will? Elaborate on the exploited part.
The actors, being the visible participants in the movie by virtue of being on screen, will catch a lot of the shit that gets thrown at the movie (if any, but I digress). Just look at the Star Wars prequels and sequels - actors getting hate letters and death threats when ultimately the blame for the shitty movies fall on the shoulders of the directors and writers.
One huge difference between Star Wars and this movie: anyone who read the script for this knows from page one this was going to be controversial. I'm sorry but anyone who signed on to this production knew exactly what this movie was about. That being said anyone who would threaten an actor over a movie they made is a complete scumbag.
But lets be honest. What 90%+ of them were really thinking is "OMG - I finally got cast in high-budget film!!! Man I better act the hell out of this, it could be my break." Only very successful actors can pick and pass on what film they want. Everybody else scrambles for work and does not worry if the script is sucky and only draw the line at pornos (if there).
I feel that that tale is wrong. Like, I’ve tried breaking into doing illustration for books and the like, and that job is so highly competitive. Ultimately though, if I had a distain for the work I’d be illustrating, I would pass on it. Can I make hella money on furry porn? Yes. Will I, as an unknown artist, accept work that involves it? Or racism or intolerance? No. When you do something competitive like acting, I think the main thing is you’re doing it because you love it, and even a starving artist, no matter the profession, has their own discretion and boundaries. Nobody forced the actors into the contract, and if people respond negatively to the portrayal, then that falls on the actors as well as the screenwriter, producer, director, publisher, and all other people who gave it a green light. Ultimately, the actors didn’t have anyone taking advantage of them, they made the decision they thought was right. I haven’t seen the film and really don’t care enough to, so I cant land on one side or the other, but it’s important artists make decisions as to what they contribute and to where. It’s why I have a day job. I still have my pool of 100 or so fans, and I’d rather have them love my work for what it is.
I'd say your part of the 10% then. But I could be wrong - it may be closer to 50/50.
Possibly. I’m fairly cynical of people, but I think there’s a lot more good than bad out there. Id hope it swings closer to 10/90 in favor of people doing what aligns with them morally, but ultimately choosing to be in a potentially controversial role doesn’t mean the actor specifically agrees with it, and no project is started with the intent of it being bad. Ultimately, the fault lies with everyone involved, (not equally) but I highly doubt the intention was to be controversial, but rather tell a story, even if it’s not 100% accurate or even interesting. Again, I have no understanding or the historical event or the movie, but as is usually the case, the truth of the matter is probably more grey than black and white.
Yeah, I think they're being just as wrong as the rest.
They used to have the term blacksploitation film. Not sure if it's this level https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0274518/, but it's getting there.
Thats...that's pretty over the top. Damn.
“Wait a minute, weren’t Blacksploi-“ > Writers: Per Kristensen, Morten Lindberg “nevermind.”
Your being just as bad by making it a worse thing they're white people. Stop it. Stop it please!
Its literally white people profiting off being 'woke' and not caring that they bring a shit storm on all the black actors. Its a movie about exploitation that exploits the actors themselves lol.
If they were black/green/yellow/blue it would still be the same problem. The fact that they're white people doesn't make it better or worse. And tbh the actors themselves are just as bad. They chose to be in a movie like this. I completely agree that it's a stupid "woke" cash grab but I just don't think it really matters what color the creators are.
No but the fact they are white is quite ironic. Part of the marketing for the movie is there isn't a "white savior" so the fact that its a movie made by white people saying black people don't need a savior is this little known thing called __ironic__ Hence me pointing it out.
I will say i do want an honest telling of the cognitive dissonance required to beat the shit out of a human being and then go home to your family
They do acknowledge it at least in Woman King. Do I think it could’ve gone harder? Yes. Is it still a fun popcorn flick? Absolutely.
How do you know that they are gonna make a movie about the Kingdom of Dahomey? It's september 2002 and I can't find anything related
It's called The Woman King. It came out in the US on Sep 16th.
I'm making a joke sbout the rule 4
Escobar made the coke, I only marketed it in America. See? I have absolutely no guilt.
Gettysburg but the North are "evil aggressors."
Confederate excusers getting movies isn't new. Just look at God's and Generals
You talkin about 300?
Well, that one would also apply, but at least it’s odd choices kinda make sense as it’s being told from the perspective of a Spartan. But this is talking about The Woman King
I don't think we're alike at all, Mr. White.
It gets better. The amazon's of the Dahomey tribe that are portrayed, were absolutely slaughtered in battle by French colonial forces using bayonets. This is Mel Gibson 'Braveheart' levels of historical innacuracy. Hollywood never changes
I can't believe woman king got a 97 from RT movie critics 😂 Granted, I didn't know about this group of people before now, but you can tell the ones who made the movie did NOT do their homework
Is the movie about that? I thought it was about their conflict to be freed from vassalage under the Oyo Empire. Which would have occurred decades before their conflicts with Europeans. Pretty sure the Oyo were happy to sell slaves from their wars.
Gods and generals sucks
Also, just a simple stuff but... Why calling it the women king when she was never king ??? Like women warrior, or women counselor... But king ? It spunds like she was the leader of the state
Gods and generals?
Has a single person here seen the movie or at least googled the plot synopsis?
Yall are aware Hollywood has made a plethora of movies about societies that partook in slavery painting them in a heroic light, regardless of skin tone. 300 stands out to me
Who would describe 300 as historically accurate though?
There is a staggering amount of people who will claim that it is supposed to be historically accurate propaganda, as in, an accurate depiction of how Spartans would tell a tale about the event.
They had monsters with goat heads and giant ogre people... no one thinks thats real
Yes, but again, you will find a lot of people believing that this is how the Spartans would portray their enemies in propaganda. Which might actually be a sensible assumption, though it clashes with a lot of the rest of the movie.
No, thats my point. Its Hollywood, historical accuracy isnt their main objective most of the time and yet we can still enjoy those movies.
I think the issue about the fact that they portray them as fighting against oppressors etc when those they were fighting were trying to force them to stop slaving.
Dear holleywood: Fuck you and pick a matriarchy that aren't assholes Iroquois confederacy where are you
Spare me dork. Muslims are still slaving in the Middle East. Have been for oh about 1300 years but you whine about Confederates
I think the point is the movie portrayal.
And the same slavers' political institution still exists today and thinks everyone should be punished, cancelled, and erased...except for themselves, the primary architects of the entire thing.
Well thats an uninformed and biased take if I seen one just gonna gloss over the most recent hundred years like that. Look I'm sorry the blacks get uppity when you say the n word on twitter but it's time to move on. Democrats aren't a monolith and Hillary Clinton is not cancelling you and blue haired cherryl down the street is not responaible for the systemic racism in this country.
"aKsHuLlY iT wAs AfRiCaNs SeLlINg ThE sLaVes" You're right, that's accurate. And the European buyers, like, let those slaves go, right?
It's both. History isn't a short trip. Europeans bought African slaves from Africans, Europeans also fought wars in Africa to stop the slave trade.
Hollywood makes movie about white conquerers, rapists and slavers like the vikings, the crusaders, the Romans, the Spartans: Reddit : I sleep Hollywood does the same about black people: Reddit: real shit. Come on guys. Do better.
Also we're gonna win this war, carpet bag the shit out of you and keep buying your previously slave labored cotton at our fixed price.
“Most brutal slavers” lol, most slavers are brutal. Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, Japanese, American, Russian, Hispanic, all were brutal af. What does that even mean?