>> there's no question it would be very difficult for a single woman or a widow to survive in this environment entirely on their own. anybody else on this particular issue? >> so she was widowed twice in the film? >> yes. >> would people have stopped marring her after a while? >> not rhett. >> well, i think, you know, i don't know of anything -- i mean, you might say there's bad luck. you might say that there's something going on, but i don't know of anything that would have prevented someone from marrying with her amount of wealth. there would be somebody willing to take a chance. one last thing about why it was so popular in the '30s and '40s. why do they sell a million dollars worth of tickets in two weeks? >> it is this beautiful romantic

image of a time that never really was. it's something beautiful, romantic and exciting and they can get away from how much their lives absolutely suck. >> that's why the movie industry does incredibly well during the great depression. you wouldn't think it does well, but it does incredibly well for that reason. so we are to the point where we talk about what the movie does right. 12 minutes left. >> how does the movie measure up historically speaking when dealing with some of the elite white characters and their lives. better or worse than how they deal with african-americans? hard to be worse than the treatment of african-americans, so then better.

so laura michael and brooke at the beginning talk about, i think, sort of overall southern white perceptions of race. and brooke makes the argument -- both of them make the argument that this is an accurate depiction of the way whites perceived the way things went or an accurate portrayal of the south's memory of that time at that time. so again to that extent, not bad for capturing that particular moment in time. i think laura michael's second sentence is a right to critique that. 2w individuals? scarlet's parents, how historically accurate do you think they were. >> he was irish. really irish. new to the south.

i just thought it was -- and the irish, especially in the north were seen as being like the lowest of the low, just above african-americans. how likely would it have been for him to own this huge plantation. >> he's too rich, but there are a number of scots and irish immigrants who go to the upcountry part of the south, the back country part of the south and are able to get land and in some cases are able to attain slaves. he's too rich. >> i thought i read somewhere that he had won tara in a bet? >> in the book that's the case. >> that might explain a little bit. >> in the book, he and o'hara are fleshed out more. in the book he has to flee ireland because he killed somebody. there's a whole different

narrative that goes on that we don't see in the film. what about ellen? we talked about how she tells her husband what to do. what's her role in it? we don't see much of her actually at all in the movie. what's her role? kendall. >> she's pious. she's the caretaker. she's what scarlet is not, motherly. it's kind of -- she could also be the foil to scarlet. the southern model for womanhood. >> she's the idealized plantation mistress. she is the model that everyone is supposed to follow. if anything, melanie is sort of her spiritual daughter in the film, not scarlet, right? she's everywhere. she takes care of the sick. supervises the slaves and family. helps out with the ill in the

neighborhood. she holds the family in the plantation to a higher level of morality. that's what plantation mistresses are supposed to do. the one problem with this particular characterization is that most elite women couldn't handle all of the things and spent most of their lives exhausted or fainting and gave up on it and didn't do it. she may have depicted the ideal but probably didn't depict the reality. i think the general war time experience of the o'haras was not out of the realm of possibility. the way that ellen dies of disease and her death forces scarlet to take on new responsibilities. gerald o'hara's mental collapse. all of these things are completely believable in the context of the civil war. we talked about scarlet's stepping out of the boundaries of gender roles at the time. it is possible that she could have transformed from southern

belle to overpowering dominant force. certainly the idea of being forced into business or marriages they wouldn't have been interested in or seen as ideal before the war, absolutely that happens after the war. we haven't talked about rhett butler other than to talk about how slick he is. intimidating but alluring, i think was another phrase. smooth, right? how historically accurate is butler's character. >> he's clark gable. >> he does play a good clark gable. but that person, right? i take brooke's point that gable is such a presence that he sort of overpowers the historical role. i think that's a fair point. >> he's too good to be true.

having a character who wasn't super patriotic and wasn't going to go off and join the cause for four years and was in it for his own profit. that was a nice touch. >> i was mad when he went and joined the war though. why? >> i'm going to leave you an the road to tara and go join the war. why? >> it's one of the few times i actually felt bad for scarlet, right. i didn't see that coming either. right. anna. >> it seems not realistic. the south doesn't have any factories how are you supposed to win this. you think it's a gentleman's war but they have more stuff than we do. i thought he was the realism factor. >> there aren't many southern moderates, but rhett does a good job channeling their concerns and complaints. >> he was also an idealistic male for that time period. i will point out scarlet is panicking in the town when the north is coming down. rhett shows up in this white suit with white gloves on with a carriage immediately for her. he shows up. i call him slick because he

literally slithers in and disappears for a couple of years. was he an ideal of what a gentleman -- >> he is a romanticized notion. i think ashley is supposed to be the ideal, full of honor, right? the problem is that, especially the post war period, ashley is pretty useless. he suffers from what appears to be a kind of post-traumatic stress or depression, the nonapathy that we talked about and rhett is the successful new south. the roguish new south. >> how is ashley supposed to be the honorable one? he can't make up his mind between scarlet or melanie, even though technically he is true to melanie. >> he doesn't act on those things and scarlet would clearly happily do so. >> doesn't he kiss her a couple of times? >> he tripped and kissed her. i think those things happen sometimes.

no, they don't. i think it's problematic, but he's supposed to be this honorable guy. he's supposed to be, right? part of the movie does sort of put him in an awkward position. where is an honorable guy in the post war south? he doesn't succeed. he doesn't do well. he is put in awkward situations. >> in the beginning we think that he's like -- he's like the bad guy but you know no one really wants him. now he's forcing his way into scarlet's life and everything. melanie is the only one that sees the good in him. at the end he loved his daughter. i adored this man. he loved his daughter. in the beginning i didn't like him but then in the end i loved him. he loved his daughter. he loves scarlet and wants to take care of her. yeah, he has his flaws, but

whatever. i think that also goes with someone commented on how this appeals to the women and the romantic side of the movie. obviously, this brings in a lot more people and everything. yeah, the new south and everything, but the cinematic point of view draws in women. >> so where does all of this leave us? we're almost out of time. where does all of this leave us? i think in some ways rhett and scarlet are potentially the most historically accurate actors. even go the world they inhabit bears little resemblance to the actual civil war south. they are appealing figures both individually and together. rhett's late conversion to a cause of honor and to defend a particular way of life, though troubling in the midst of the movie, i think, reflected the motivations of millions of soldiers who marched off to war. in 1939, millions of americans who might think that they would be marching off to war before long as well. scarlet's rather heady mixture

of flawed passion, endurance, determination, experiences appealed then and now to many people. despite the flaws, the movie still succeeds in drawing people in. in kathryn clinton's review of the film, one of the earliest reviewers of the novel noted that it's one of the virt ufs ms. mitchell's book that she presents the myth of the lost cause without being taken in by it or asking us to accept it. she makes clear the reasons for its vitality and its ultimate demise. but as clinton goes on to detail, as we can see for ourselves today, this is not true of the movie. it overindulges and wallows in lost cause romanticism. to be fair, mitchell's book talks about the kkk as heroes and protectors of the real victims of the war, the poor rich white people. but she also describes reconstruction as a never ending

picnic for lazy and dangerous negroes. but the film's prologue text which is not in the book takes mitchell's setting of the lost cause to a whole new level. there was a land of cavaliers and cotton fields called the oiled south. gallantry took its last bow. here was the last ever to be seen of knights and their fair lady. look for it only in books because it is no more than a dream remembered. a civilization gone with the wind. the prologue sets the viewer up for a theme that pervades this film. a theme of confederate romanticism. a theme of a lost camelot. that theme is the real problem with this movie as a secondary source about the antebellum south. catherine described this as confederate porn. the history for her is largely a backdrop for a soap opera. the romance between rhett, scarlet and ashley.

when the movie is about anything else, it's an idealized portrait of the elite white south. this movie depicts that idealized portrait. as if it were reality. the plantation myth as if the old south in the prologue was a unique place. where all white southerners were educated plantation owners, romantic and refined. where they loved their slaves and their slaves involved them. where the north began the war and forced the gallant south to lose, though the south did so with honor. federally-imposed reconstruction ruined the south forever. this confederate-tinged nostalgia is problematic to the relation in the roles of blacks and whites. despite working with the naacp on the script, including the use of the n-word but retaining "darky" in its place, the picture is really a product

of the pervasive writings of early 20th century scholar ullrich bonner philips and his students on slavery. most notably, the argument that the south was full of kind masters who had the loyalty of their happy slaves. to be fair, it was a view that dominated the study of american history in the first half of the 20th century. it's a view thoroughly and completely rejected by academics ever since. to be fair, selznick and the studio were focused on capturing white audiences who had shown great interest in seeing plantation epics like "birth of the nation" in the 1910s. the movie is extremely useful for us as a primary force of what whites, immigrants born wanted to believe about slavery and slave society. it's not surprising that there are no attempts to include the racial struggles of the era and no depictions of slaves or free blacks as anything other than ka

rirk tours. no attempt to address the racial war in the civil war era. hattie mcdaniel who won her oscar for her role as mammy couldn't attend the film's georgia premiere. why not? segregation laws prevented her from being there. in fact part of the movie popularity came from a racist or racialized desire for a time when race relations were supposedly simpler. that was a time that never existed except perhaps in the minds of southern white elites. but that doesn't minimize the appeal and not just to whites in the south in the 1930s. the movie never addresses the real problems of slavery or racial reconstruction. it doesn't because because it is a movie that wholly takes on the

perspective of the elite southern whites who lost their world and remembered it more fondly than it actually was. the movie is an homage to the perspective of the confederate apologists. a view of the south that never existed. honestly, if it wasn't so popular it wouldn't be a problem. it would occasionally run on turner movie classics or amc or so late at night that it was early on in the morning and we could just leave it as a relic of its time. but that's not the case. as long as it continues to be so important to some people, it is going to continue to cause anger and discomfort in others, including current historians of the south as it subjects new generations to its racist messages. do i think most people who like the movie care what i think. frankly, my dear, i doubt they will give a damn. thank you.

next week, another civil war movie with a very different perspective, "glory." while congress is on break this month, we are showing programming normally seen weekends here on cspan3. during american history tv. coming up, the history of the civil war and slavery as seen through hollywood depictions. we begin with a panel of history professors and their film reviet since the 1930s, including "mandingo" and "amistad" and "12 years a slave." and then matthew pinster will evaluate the film "lincoln" followed by a look at "gone with the wind" reviewed by jeffrey mcclerken. all of this coming up tonight on american hustry tv here an c-span3. this week, special primetime programming an the c-span networks. tonight on c-span, from glasgow,

a debate over scottish independence. then on tuesday, issues spotlight an irs targeting of conservative groups. wednesday night, the principal of hartford connecticut's capital preparatory magnet school on educating children from disadvantaged backgrounds. thursday a house budget committee hearing an federal, state and private anti-poverty programs. friday night, native american history. on c-span 2 this week, book tv in primetime. tonight at 8:thu30, a discussio about school choice. tuesday night at 8:00, writer john hope bryant on his book "how the poor can save capitalism." and wednesday at 8:00, an interview with jay barberie, author of a biography about neil armstrong. thursday night at 8:00, a tour of the headquarters of book publisher simon & shuster. and friday, in depth with former congressman ron paul. on american hustry tv on c-span3, tonight, the reconstruction era and civil

rights. on tuesday, the end of warld war ii and the atomic bomb. wednesday night the 25th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall. thursday, a look at how americans atitudes about world war i changed throughout the course of the war. friday, a nasa documentary about the 1969 apollo 11 moon landing. find our television schedule one week in advance at c-span.org. and let us know what you think about the programs you're watching. call us at 202-626-3400. on twitter use the #c123. e-mail us at comments@c-span.org. like au like us on facebook, follow us on twitter. it's been 100 years since the u.s. civil war. over the next few hours, we are going to take a look at hollywood's perception of the issues. now, a panel of history professors traces the evolution of slavery as depicted in films

since the 1930s. this hour and a half event is from the society of civil war historians biannual meeting in baltimore. in the past two years, three feature films whose focus is american slavery and emancipation have been released to positive and often glowing reviews and all of them were profitable. "django unchained" made $160 million domestic. "lincoln" made $182 million. "12 years a slave" made $26 million but only cost $26 million to make. it made twice as much as its budget. roughly the same as the other two films. this mini upsurge has provoked a lot of debate and discussion about the depictions of slavery and freedom of film and other forms of media, visual media and

television and documentary, youtube shorts and different series. we are continuing that conversation today. all of our panelists are fierce scholars of the american south and race and gender. they have also written about, reviewed, taught courses on and consulted for films about slavery. kathryn clinton has been teaching at queens university belfast since 2006 but will be coming back to the united states this fall to be the professor of u.s. history at the university of texas, san antonio. she's the author of numerous books about gender, race and the american civil war including biographies of mary todd lincoln, harriet tubman and

fannie kimball and has edited stories about susan king taylor and mary chestnut. professor clinton serves on the advisory committees to the abraham lincoln commission and virginia commission and an advisory board member of civil war history of the ford's theater in washington, d.c. and the "civil war times." she also serves as historical consultant to steven spielberg's "lincoln." i imagine we will hear about some of that experience today. john inscoe is professor of history and university professor at the university of georgia. he is the author of "mountain masters slavery and the sectional crisis in western north carolina." "race, war and remembrance" in the appalachian south and co-author of "the heart of the confederate appalachia. the civil war in western north carolina. he edited the georgia historical quarterly and is the editor of the new georgia encyclopedia and outgoing secretary of the southern historical association. the professor recently completed

a book entitled "riding the south through the south." and is currently working on a book on aplatappalachia in film. brenda stevenson is history of professor at ucla where she served as chair of the department of history and the program of afro-american studies. authored the award-winning "life in black and white," "family in the community of slave south," and "justice, gender and origins of the l.a. riots" which just won the oah's 2014 rolle prize. and "what is slavery" will be published in 2015. she has received awards from the mellon foundation, ford foundation, smithsonian institution and american association of university women. so, clearly, a group of slackers.

so, we will start with john inscoe and move down the table with the comments from the panelists. >> all right. thank you, megan. i think i'm here because i teach a course on slavery in fact, film and fiction. we start with "birth of a nation" and go through the 1930s, films like "jezebel" and these shirley temple epics, "the little colonel" and "littlest rebel" and "gone with the wind." shown clips of these and then moved on to walt disney's "song of the south" after the war in 1946. then jump up to the modern era with the 1990s with movies about slavery, stephen spielberg's "amastad."

and "beloved" put on film by oprah winfrey and others. and then up to "django unchained" and "12 years a slave." in using these films with students as measures of racial progress or the lack thereof in american popular culture, hollywood in the 1930s was very much entrenched in the lost cause approaches to slavery. slaves are background figures, they are supporting casts. they are often mere comic relief who are gladly serving their masters and mistresses who for the most part are very benign and well-meaning but also firm and authoritative. sometimes frustrated at the ineptitude of their slaves. think of scarlet and prissy for example. not much had changed by 1946 when walt disney took on uncle remis in a children's film "song of the south." despite the fact it's banned or not distributed by walt disney company in this country. it generated considerable controversy when it came out.

it shows how far or how more sensitive race was in the post war era than in the 1930s. it took until the early '70s before it was banned. it was the early '70s when walt disney finally gave into pressure of its political incorrectness. what i have to use now is a video smuggled to me by a former student of mine who lives in japan where it is very popular, where you can see it with japanese subtitles and a multiculture georgia as well and works beautifully there to look at "song of the south" with japanese subtitles. japanese intrigued with all things southern. "gone with the wind" as well as "song of the south." the subtitles only appear when they sing. they can understand the spoken voice in japan, but once the singing starts, they need the subtitles, so you can get

"zippity-do-da" with japanese translations under the song. i think it is an interesting film because it's a milestone of sorts, as politically incorrect as it is in many ways. it is also the first film to take a black character and make him the central character around which the plot revolves. it also makes him the most sympathetic and wisest character. he outsmarts all the white adults in the film. nevertheless he is a contended slave there or ex-slave, as it may be. the film is very ambivalent about whether or not it's set before or after the civil war. it is interesting to teach that with students and look at some of what is it advances the cause as well as prominence of

slavery and putting the slave center stage. still, some of the old guard assumptions about slavery it's very comfortable in perpetuating. by the '50s and '60s, hollywood was producing more socially conscious and cutting edge films based on race. things like "pinky," "the defiant ones" in the 1960s "guess who's coming to dinner," "in the heat of the night." it pretty much steered clear of slavery and 19th century race relations in any significant way. it was a real leap into the modern films. i don't deal with "roots" or that great film of the 1970s, "mandingo" with students. with these modern films from the 1990s on up until the very recent films we've seen last year, i thought i'd throw out a couple of things that strike me as worthy of discussion. one is the gender dimension here. i thought with this panel, gender might not get much play and i better cover it.

>> it's interesting these earlier films, slaves are totally desexualized. you never see slave couples. you never see men and women together in any sort of romantic or household context. they're usually very single asexual figures. you never see them as parents in any sort of role. they're definitely supporting casts in all issues avoided. also relative non-issues in films like "glory," "amistad" and "lincoln" yet there are other films that make the plight of women in themes or subplots with women. two put slave women front and center. "beloved" and "the journey of august king." "the journey of august king" is set in appalachia and north carolina and by an author who has done a whole span covering

southern appalachian history. set in 1815, very early. deals with the escape of a slave girl who is abused by her owner, who it turns out in the course of the film is also her father. and a yeoman farmer on his way to market who encounters her, befriends her and aids her in her escape. newton plays the slave, jason patric plays august king. the yeoman who helps her out. there is a strong attraction between them and always remains chaste. this father/owner/lover is determined to get this girl back and goes to no end to mount a manhunt to go after her. i think in many ways, it's the most interesting and in some ways nuanced and sophisticated treatment of class distinctions and class attitude, not only

towards slaves but slave holders and tremendous resentment at a time and place slave is far more an anomaly than the norm in the mountains of north carolina in that early frontier era. the other is "beloved" adopted then, in this 1873 post-emancipation period she continues to be haunted by a version of the infant girl she

murdered decades earlier. she's also played by mandy newton. it's a clunky film, not a great film but fascinating it was made in a film. i have students read the novel and we watch parts of the film. then, we come to "12 years a slave" and even "django unchained." i think part of what they do so well is feature female characters who take on as much or more abuse as do their male protagonists. in "django," quentin tarantino the most macho treatment of slavery. the most macho western spaghetti and racial revenge fantasy. it's over the top as in so many fronts. the plot is fueled by an attempt to rescue django's much tormented slave wife played by kerry washington which makes for some of the most poignant moments but also accounts for

its absurdly happy ending as they blow up the plantation and everybody in it and ride happily off into the suddenset. in "12 years," it's the harassment, both physical and mental abuse inflicted on patty by her master and mistress that gets far more attention unfortunately in the film than in the narrative. this is something that's been expanded on by the screenwriters. and as you know earned an academy award for lupita, the actress who played patsy. it's one of the few films other than "roots," i can't think of any other film that's dramatized the separation of mothers from their children. and as you all remember in the sale, the auction in which solomon himself is sold, he's sold along with a mother and two children. she is separated from her two children and solomon becomes the means by which he tries to comfort this woman and is paralyzed by grief at the loss of those children.

it also occurs to me that as central as these fugitive narratives are in giving a slave voice as a primary source on the american slavery, how rare we see escape narratives as part of what has been translated into screen. even solomon northrop was counted among the great slave narratives but doesn't involve an escape. his release comes from machinations and legal dealings that happen. brad pitt sets this all in motion. we never see any of it on screen. so the drama has to come from elsewhere. not much drama in the wagon comes up. papers shown to the owner and the gets in and drives off to freedom. the only instances we get of slave escape are those involving women. one is that in "beloved," a

flashback in which seth in crossing the -- a really harrowing scene. crossing the ohio river or getting ready to cross the ohio river she actually gives birth to the baby girl she will subsequently kill when slave catchers are out to get her. the other, the one i mentioned already, the "journey of august king," the entire narrative is driven by this escape, this manhunt, and even so typically hollywood, you get the name of the male protagonist, "the journey of august king" rather than the slave's name. it's very much her journey as well despite the fact in real life there are far fewer women that escape or escape alone than there were men, but we've seen very little of that translated to screen so far. one other observation on the gender front and then i will turn it over to my fellow panelists. i think it's very curious white women really ruled the roost in these early depictions of

plantation slavery in the 1930s. think of bette davis in "jezebel," scarlet o'hara and her mother that really are the authority figures of the slaves at tara and beyond. in "song of the south," it's an elderly widow. we have no men on the premise. no slave masters. they're either absent or very much in the background. in perhaps the most absurd example you have a 7-year-old shirley temple spends much of the littlest rebel bossing around bill bojangles robinson or other adult slaves which students find either appalling or ludicrous or both. it's only in these very recent slaves we have strong masters and we find very cruel sadistic and even demented men that dominate. michael fastbender in "12 years a slave" and leonardo dicaprio in "django."

echos back to simon legree in "uncle tom's cabin." which appeared the year before "12 years a slave" in a solomon northrop dedicated his narrative to harriet beacher stowe. he was very familiar with her novel and the impact of her novel. and it makes you wonder if the separation of family, the abuse of slave women and certainly these very cruel and sadistic owner may have been influenced in some part -- not to say he didn't experience with all himself -- makes you wonder how many of those elements come through in stowe's novel published the week before. that's just an observation. i don't know what we will make of this. i'll leave it at that and turn it over to catherine. >> thank you. i want to thank the organizers of this panel for the opportunity to reflect.

when i first began my work on the "plantation south 40 years ago, one of my mentors insisted i go see and accompanied me to see the film "mandingo" in times square in 1975. the year it was a top 10 box office hit. the scholar later pointed out to me a billboard in times square that featured an escort service that was 1-800-call-tara. certainly, i was made aware of the way films could influence attitudes. that produced in my first book a chapter called "fuco meets mandingo." launching my scholarly career amidst this kind of topic, "mandingo" was appearing in the midst of a real revival, a real rich available literature

on slavery. mandingo was followed by the publication of "roots" and the 1977 miniseries appearing on tv. this year i supervised a thesis, a student writing on the impact of "roots," not just the novel and the film and the first miniseries but the multiple miniseries that came after it, the phenomenon. he was drawn to this topic because of the current spate of films and media attention on the role of slavery in the american past. the appearance of such films as "django unchained" and "lincoln" and "12 years a slave" and "asante, the film "belle." these films not only raised the profile of american history in slavery but the ability of academics and scholars to not just debate their work and student within the campus bubble to reach outside the halls of

the academy and discuss this with a larger public audience. this intersects of a time of larger questions, our role in society and crisis and academics to prove they are engaged in public service and dialogue. i certainly became aware of the way we academics are being invited to play a role in the reception of film during the past few decades. i'm thinking of campaigns to woo civil war scholars with the screenings of "cold mountain." most recently "the conspirator." certainly one of the best gambits of all was to include scholars on-screen as extras in the 1983 film "adaptation of killer angels gettysburg." even if we are brought on board as advisors we may have crucial contributions to the screening of slavery. many of my colleagues had strident objections to the presentation of blacks in spielberg's "lincoln" or interpretations of slavery by the inclusion or omission of the african-american presence.

i myself was impressed with the film and know it had limitations. i was nevertheless overwhelmed by its artistry and impact and in disclosure i did consult on the costumes and met with sally field, who was interested in someone who was more obsessed with mary lincoln than she was. i would have appreciated more complexity on two of the roles of the two african-americans with whom lincoln had the most constant and certain lie significant contact during his years in the white house. i thought the filmmakers did a powerful job in this particular portrait of racial dynamics within the walls of the executive mansion. as i discussed with eric phoner during the interview for civil war times -- and the length of our discussion was cut to fit the magazine. i remember distinctly defending tony kushner who can well defend himself and talking about the difficulty of a screenwriter

squeezing everything in which historians don't take into account. i did a very brief stint trying to write for the very small screen, pitching and being hired to write made for tv movies during the 1990s. what i learned is how collaborative the film business was, how challenging and impossible it is to protect the historical accuracy and even authenticity. eric rightly pointed out we face constraints as writers and cannot complain to critics who take us to task saying we had to leave things out. the contraband camp scenes that remain on the cutting floor of the lincoln project do not excuse the absence of opportunities for exploring the african-american presence in washington during 1865. i would say the arc of the film's narrative does create complications most historians have never contemplated, confronted, or finessed. how many of us would like our

manuscript to go before a focus group. if you think that's what a peer-reviewed manuscript is, you're very naive and i'm sad because it's a much more difficult ordeal. i have participated in roundtables and in debates informally, no shouting matches yet. i think all the discussion of spielberg's "lincoln" contributes to our seeking more and better interpretations of the complexities of race within our larger culture as well as on-screen. i must confess social media has also had a powerful influence on me when i found myself embedded in a debate over interpreting "django" on a facebook conversation with two scholars. i was enlightened and enraged when scholars commented and debated a lively fashion the merits of tarantino's film. i have written a review that appreciates a 2012 film "abraham

lincoln vampire hunter" taking it at face value. i found the 3d distracting but the narrative was compelling in that slave holders being portrayed as blood suckers who drained the life out of enslaved persons to promote their unholy empire struck a chord. of course, i would have a weakness for any film that shows the battle of gettys burg as the contribution of two women, marilyn and harriet tubman. but tarantino, he was clearly fantasizing. on balance i was not taken by tarantino's cinematic film. "django" is a frame by frame freakish homage. the film did include some amazing insights, german slave catcher, german slave concubine. the drive to reunite despite

obstacles. i could go on and on but these would be measured against the phantasmagorical and the bridge of the river kwai introduced into the antebellum landscape. this landscape as megan pointed out had a $425 million worldwide box office compared to julie dash's more compelling 1991 portrait, "daughters in the dust" which did $1.6 million in sales. i don't think we really think about things in terms of box office, but we need to think of9 the way multiplex is a complex thing affecting the historical engination and hkao6 begun to dominate culture. for many of us sitting this room, the topic of slavery has been part of our scholarly work and imagination for decades. has it created the public engagement that the film "12 years a slave" has engendered? not within people within the academy but with the ordinary

people we encounter in daily life. and for many of us involved in lincoln studies, whom i've affectionately dubbed lincolnistas, even we were taken by surprise by the mass outpour following daniel day-lewis' portrayal of the 16th president. i have endlessly debated the opening scene in "lincoln," which i thought was a great slight of cinematic hand. i'm a fan of the anachronistic moment when david o'yellow, a fantastic afro-british actor, ñthe butler." but he appears at corpal ira clark and repeats lunn con's words back to him from the gettysburg address after an exchange lincoln had with black soldiers in the executive prancion the year before. from the pages of the "new york times" to civil war history. accuracy, authenticity, value and damage over african-american issues has been widely

discussed. the blogosphere has been erupting with praise and commentary concerning solomon northrop's story but no one has been more than lupita. this is payback when artist carol walker tried to inject a note of disinence to the overwhelming interpretation of northrop as hero trying to introduce patsy's perspective. she was crowded out. she was cut off by her male interviewee, co-interviewees. the actor has earned a showcase to project a platform for discussing african-american women in the culture. her speech, for example, to the black hollywood awards ceremony -- the black women in hollywood awards ceremony available on youtube offers a wide and full examination of her talents in politics. and a recent review of the film

"belle" i commented on a scene in which gugu, playing the lead, an 18th century mixed race woman raised in a home of lord summerset in the english countryside, stares into the mirror, rubbing at her face as if she might scour her color away. an image which stays with the viewer long after the happy ending is contrived. it certainly echoes the speech and voice of countless african-american girls and women. this very week we mourn the loss of ruby dee, activist, actress, someone who recognized the limitations and stereotypes imposed for african-american actors, particularly women. she spent a lifetime struggling against boundaries. looking at her emblem attic career, she had a luminous role in the 1961 film "raisin in the sudden," a remarkable performance in the miniseries

"roots" but she herself commented on the limitations imposed on her during her five-decade film career. only nominated for an oscar in 2008 in riddley scott's "american gangster." i remember her amazing interpretation of one of the wpa slave narratives that she was one of the dozen actors who contributed to the 2003 documentary "unchained memories." we can learn from her more than half century of commitment to her craft that you contribute, you disseminate, you struggle with the media to put forward deep, complex interpretations. you may live to see a younger generation reap rewards and you might even live long enough to see the honoring of those who came before you, or you yourself. yesterday's opening plenary discussed the beguilement of the archives. many of us are equally beguiled by the darkened cinema. just as seth rahman is an archival optimist, i am proclaiming myself a cinematic

anti-pessimist. i've been teaching a course on american icons of late, moving my classroom from northern ireland to texas. will find it interesting to see how students respond. i'm certainly look to films to help them understand the american past, and rather than disputing this i thinkly better to interrogate these tales, these myths. many have worked so long to try to quan time and place. we have at our disposal incredible films, incredible inspirational performances, which speak powerfully. screen interpretations of slavery, like so many compelling aspects of america's past will continue to blossom with or without the academy. so those of us committed to

reaching a wider odds yen have to make ourselves accessible whatever the cost despite reservations and continue to pass the popcorn as well as judgment. thank you. in relationship to other films, and also film about slavery, and also particularly about his portrayal of women in the film.

unsympathetic view of america's most notorious, if not peculiar institution from the perch of a black person thrown into the harrowing depths. that was, after all, the point of in roots, and sinka in automatic stade. nets is -- destined to be a classic because of heart-wrenches, the brutalized sex slave of her sadistic master. these characterizations already have been graphically demonstrated in jonathan dem's "beloved" and "roots." like wide character elements desperate ex-concube iron and eliza, and mistress shaw are

both found in pupon in "the courage to love. frustrations, violence and cruelty of slave mistresses, this reality was more than adequately rendered by susan george as blanch maxwell in richard fleischer's 1975 "mandingo." solomon himself in mcqueen's portrayal as a striking positive image of black manhood is a worthy protagonist, but so too was others. all these important elements of african and african-american slave life have been part of tv and big screen movies since at least. 1970s. still no is a major contribution to slave thermography, because it probably is the first hollywood products to incorporate some version of all of these characters and scenarios of southern u.s.

slavery in one film. of course, we haven't even discussed the film that comes from other -- you know, that depict slavery in other parts of is the atlantic world. it does so moreover, and while flinch glynn. master work, boast seg stunning cinematography, brilliant task and gut-wrenching movement, and eventually uplifting. still, it is a flawed and incomplete master work how could one film counter a comprehensive view of a 250-year-old institution involving millions of person, to say nothing of racial and gender -- in an

ever-expand i ever-expanding slave labor, and the diverse rows of enslaved women, but also inaccurate contextualization of the lives of free people of color. as well as looking at a farmer who actually was not very wealth

in. that is, epps. as a result, the film's views august yen is left to believe mistakenly the various plantations, mistakenly that slaves on various plantations. did not have close ties to one another, as communal units. the slave resistance was rare, and experienced largely confined to the actions of men, and that free men and women in the antibell limb north were indeed free and equal to their white neighbors. the effect of these emissions is a dramatically told autobiography that nonetheless lacks a nuanced story develop and later characterization that this important first-person account of slavery demands, and catherine, you have served as a consultant for film, and i want you to know that they did not use the historical consultant on that film at all. so, yes, i will slam him.

solomon northrop's autobiography -- on slavery and southern women, a rich palette of southern slave womenhood. how does he capture this in this film "12 years a slave." first encounters eliza, and her two children who epitomize a loss that so many slaved women and their young endured through sale. eliza had family, and her family since he had promised to free all of them. instead, she and her children are and she is never able to see them again. elaza mourned her losses bitter through through the saga, as well as steve mcqueen's film adaptation. in mcqueen's movie version, elaza becomes the symbol of the devastating impact slavery had on the social life and identity. the director deploys the defeat as the one response to slavery

that solomon absolutely rejects. eliza is utterly vang wished, unable to move past her losses, to survive long enough for a hopeful gale of freedom. the long suffering slave mother, of course, is a reality of black bonded womenhood that has been captured repeatedly on films. the roles of the three versions that i found, roots, beloved, for example, dom udrama depiction of such personal and familiar devastation. screen writers and directors have effectively employed heart-wrenching scenes as experienced by slave mothers. to convey to their audiences the psychological cruelty of the institution, a psychological abuse that rivals snarls i

don'ts, sings of sadistic whippings, such as that -- and the whipping to death of the fugitive slave woman whose baby has been to be delivered post mortem. indeed, the only image of enslaved women in the post "roots" film era that rivals that is the sexualized slave woman, most tick lay the concube iron, as can be seen, for example, in the characters in. and the sally, and betty and sally in -- the film -- in american scandal. the 1975 film, and eastern alex haley's "queen. quest notably, the mother and concube iron are often invested in one's character. as in the case of eliza, and

most of the olympic reporters listed above, producing a multiple victim image. northrop resisted essentializing the female slave only as victim. mcqueen does not. in the latest bit of hollywood films, that have taken on slavery, including 12 years a slave, the concube iron, not surprisingly remains the most important black female character. consider, for example, the roles of enslaved women in the award-winning films from the 2012-13 season. in "lincoln lydia hamilton smith in are the film's only two women of color characters. likewise, virtually all of the enslaved women in -- are

enconcube irons or prostitutes or on their way to being. while steve mcqueen's portrayal serves as much needed recovery from those of tarantino's, he still -- of the black woman as sexually bound to powerful white men in 12 years a slave. as such, elook i sea is hardly his film's only concube iron. remarkably, all of the enslaved women who have substantial roles in concube iron, along with eliza, there is also patsy and harriet shaw, the slave mistress of the neighboring plantation. certainly there is some merit in the inclusion of these women's stories in any realistic film about slavery. most were sexually harassed and/or abused. yet this abuse did not all

define their lives. for in it, he offers no counter or additional images of bonds women's lives. north rurp railroadsed that bonds women struggled to create and life beyond a lash and the grasp of their masters and mistresses. thank you. >> so now we have a bit of time

if you want to respond to each other's comments? while it does suggest that slave holders are blood-sucking, you know, it also only portrays slaves as vampire meet. and that's all -- you know -- that's them. i thought that was ridiculous. having a bell that ends up in them being sucked to death. sorry. my husband loved it, i have to say. my husband absolutely loved t. and i absolutely hated it. so there you go.

>> i know for a fact he was -- he wanted to be able to say that his film was the first film in 40 years to look at lincoln, but at the same time if you really believe that lincoln -- it was a film about lincoln, you know, instead i see it as a film about legends and fantasies, and this young eastern european director uses the robe of american history. once in a while he hit something that i found, you know, really enjoyable. most of the time i felt like i was being hit by the whip in the 3-d, but i think part of it is that even american vampire hunter got people debating an discussing. so much of the time i think it even gives us an opportunity. it's the npr moment where

they're going to call you up and say is it accurate or inaccurate? of course movies aren't meant to be accurate. if the director projects a certain vision for his film and wants to defend it, you know, then i think we often can debate it, but i'll bet honest, my greatest concern is i was living in the uk and i kept hearing him on interviews repeatedly, and he would say, direct quote -- it's a film about love. he claimed it was be epps and patsy, and i went, whoa, whoa, let's have a time-out, but i don't think i'm addressing that as a scholar. i'm addressing that as a feminist, and therefore i also

can say there have been -- he also said, by the way he thought the role of the planter who was played by benedict come better bulk, that he was the most evil character to jump in and to critique, so i thinking in that allows that kind of ability, it's like thank you filmmakers for being so, you know, so fantastic in your claims. and then there were no films for a while. do you think -- i'm going to ask you, do you think a bad film therefore should not have been made? >> yes, i do. impgts okay. that's fine. you're from l.a., how can you

think that? you know. [ laughter ] >> that's why i think that. that's a big town. >> steve mcqueen is a very interesting person, he does a couple things which are very annoying. he really denies the fact that anyone has done films on slavery before. i saw him at an event, and on the panel with all the actors and writer and all of that. he just would say repeatedly this is the first time a film like this has ever been made. second hi, he repeatedly said no one from britain could do this film for a black person, and no one therefore a black woman who was not born in the united states could play patsy, which i think is ridiculous as well.

thirdly, he would always -- because he didn't do his research and because he didn't not have a historic work with him, he would say repeatedly the story between epps and patsy was a love story. stop, no, it was not. the guy was crazy, he was brutal. he was on the frontier working really hard trying to make it i think he filmed back the time, when he see it is himself as a love relationship, though thankfully it doesn't come there was discovering the women in slavery had a piece about mira, the woman who was tortured and beaten.

i did feel it was an artistic achievement, and i will be showing it to students. >> i will, too. >> at the same time when you mention the box office issue, i found so many friends coming to me saying, can i go to see this if will it upset me too much? i said yesterday, actual upset, and yes, you should go see it form i will say i thought it was quite interesting that in terms of male slaves that samuel jackson did the most amazing job

so the politics the djan gmt o. quentin tarantino also said there was no film before, and he particular went after "roots" which was an interesting issue, that he was, in a way saying. >> i don't think that it's about slavery. it's a fantasy. i couldn't find one grain of reality that dealt with slavery at all. i looked at it, laughed at it, thofs it was funny, interesting, the costumes were nice, but for me it was just not a film about slavery at all. i know tarantino was upset

because historians wrote about that and said it wasn't about slavery. and i do thing, as i said in my comments that it is a master woism.sm/zx' so i look particular lay at the way he deals with women, because in solomon northrop's narrative, it's very clear in which the way that patsy is framed he doesn't mention love. love is not part of it. you're talking about a man who owns her body, wants to own her soul, and feels it's his right to do so and act accordingly.

i teach a class on slave narrative and -- i looked at the early, uncle tom's cabin, for example, and some of the other ones, but i love shirley temple, but i had forgotten shirley temple version of t i had seen song of the south growing up, so it was cool to hear -- i'm going to include those, you know, when i teach in the fall now. it was fantastic. we think of the lost cause by the early 20th century. it was an american thing. hollywood had no qualms. nobody had any qualms about seeing them and treating them as classics, making them box office hits. of course, there was some controversy with both "birth of a nation" and "gone with the wind" but it was relatively minor, a drop in the bucket

compared to the great acclaim and pop laird that they enjoyed for multiple replays over the years. so, as you say, they does dedicate his book to heartie beacher stowe, and then harriet beacher stowe, in her document -- >> she cites him. that's right. >> she cites him as this is the red river in louisiana that i'm speaking about and all of that. we see slaves working. >> yes, we do.

it's really a fabulous film. it wasn't a big box office film at all. >> sorry, they harvesting cotton in april in the opening scenes of "gone with the wind." so talk about historical inaccuracy, but they are. >> much more cinematic to harvest than to plant it. when eps only has eight slaves, then you realize how in some ways the film is just a little off in terms of it. then his house is on the historic registry. i can't pronounce it correctly. >> thank you.

little in that parish, but it's a small tin roofed house, you know, and so we lose this sense of why epps is really pushing his slaves so hard, because he's on the frontier. he's on this sugar/cotton frontier. he's got a few slaves only. his first home is actually owned by his wife's uncle you know, his 'the yeoman farmer trying to break out and being a planter. he clearly is a planter, so people would say, well, he's kinder, gentler, whatever. we miss out, but -- is also is someone who is pushing everyone

beyond so that he did move up. >> yeah, we really see small slave holders on the screen. >> i didn't know that film. i'm definitely going to go and see it. >> you can also see "the skin game," but make sure you see the correct version. if your students look up the french one, it will not work well, and discussions -- class discussions -- >> i'm not losing tenure over that. >> right. good time to turn to the audience for questions. so again, a reminder, if you have a question, please raise your hand. yes, jeremy. to one film i haven't heard mentioned yes is "ride with the devil" which i think one of the

most interesting characters is holt, the true confederate guerrillas that they used as a spy. >> i'm going to go and see it this next week. "ride with the devil"? >> teaching it, as i've taught it in northern ireland, they love it, because it's about ethnicity and religion. but i've seen, and also it is about why one is fighting the quarter beyond slavery. >> the missouri/kansas frontier. >> and you have the ex-slave who is with his master on the battle front in hiding guerrilla. it's a very complicated, interesting tale, and aingely is sort of in telling it with his vision of the quarter, which is equally powerful. we can come up with 20 more

great titles. "the beguiled" a wonderful clint eastwood film. >> strange, very quirky. >> but with african-american women, more women than men, like it should be. there aren't enough parts for women, roles, and i think you're mentioning, for example, "ride with the devil" which did i i'm always refracting through looking at the roles of women. and i thought jewel was a particularly weak character, the actress who played it. i'm just saying, you know, th often, looking at film, here we want a big screen, we want the kids to come in. so i've written about "belle" as being a boss many movie, you're trying ton heaving boss many in to see a mixed-race austen film. >> you should see it with "pride

and prejudice" and then you see "belle." >> these are much like the publishers we encounter today. what is the state of the business? what's its future? can we attract people to it? i think it's good for us to be very critical, but making period is very expensive. filmmakers don't like it, television doesn't like it. so you, you know, if someone comes to you say we want to do a reality show set on an antebelllimb. my sons came you with the idea thatished tail plant station mistress to hollywood and say "real housewives of the old south." >> actually that would be cool, i think. >> at the same time we joke, but i still say, i'm really serious about it, the debate.

i think the mel gibson film blanking the patriot. >> we all hated it. >> but at the same time this is freshmen come in, what's your interest? i have them write, and they saw a film, and so part of it is to get people excited about the past, even if it's not our past, even if it's nobody's past, some fantasy past. >> the vampire past. >> and this brings up a question of sort of what constitutes a film about slavery, right? would you think of "ride with the devil" as a film about slavery or "cold mountain"? no. there are slaves in those films, but they're very marginal, and able to sort of establish -- >> "cold mountain" had no black voices. you see a black woman being carried. you see people on the road who nod. i think that was in my mind a

subconscious "cold mountain" view of the world. we know they're there, but this is our film. >> you even see nicole kidman taking refreshments out to the slaves, but she never gets past the porch. >> that's right. >> but charles frazier does such interesting things with his references to slavery, and the attitudes of inman and these other mountaineers heading out to war. i think he missed an opportunity, maybe, to do more with that in the film. as much as i like other parts of it. people would deny the importance of slaves in their lives. on that leave, i know you've got through probably millions of letters. >> she said that.

but, no, we're the same age, probably. at any rate, you see they often don't speak about their slaves. it's kind of an interesting, you know, view of -- or perspective of the way in which the slaveholders sometimes saw their lives. which is really not -- and the families not really concerned about the slaves. they're doing all these things around them. >> they're also using their slaves to write to one another and tell stories. part of it is we come up with hundreds of great, interesting stories. where is the film on harriet jacobs or harriet tubman? plenty of harriet it is we could write films about. i'm saying we think of these stories. when i was working in the '90s

in hollywood and in a meeting, talking about these wonderful stories, this was pre-amistad, and it was talking about all these great stories. i got involved in a project, very painful, about richard m. johnson, you know, they kept pushing the story about his concube iron and daughters, and it was like would it, could it, should it? at that early age i couldn't bear. when you say you're consulting, you go to meetings, and then the film comes out. some people, they do invite in to look at it, but my first viewing of "lincoln" was at a premiere, and i just closed my eyes and crossed my fingers. you do not know there will be, you know, something thats -- but at the same time i think we have to keep trying. ? the '90s i proposed several films with black women and protagonist and i was told the three black actresses that could

carry a television film and at that time none of them -- their cue levels weren't high enough. that's why i introduced into my discussion the way niche i think african-american actresses have been so marginalized. you have to someone like lupita come forward and be so political about her speaking in this role. why are women african-american enslaved women being portrayed by non-american born women. the legacy is still very much a part of the big of american actuality culture. what will make money. if slavery makes money, they'll be making films about slavery. that's really true.

do you remember they a screenplay of celia, a true story of a missouri slave, a young girl, constantly raped by her master, haz a blass love, ends up killing her master, almost -- leads to a trial in missouri late 1850s in 9 midst of a border tensions. it's a fascinating story. >> the screenplace turned it not into her story, but the story of her lawyer, turned it into an attacus finch story. for actually defending her. >> you know, because the film business is the bankability. you look at "12 years a slave" and you did call it a -- mcqueen

also says without brad pitt playing a role in it, it would not have been bankable. the documentary film makering that we know works in these areas. to get a film going, it takes a decade of raising money, and i know spielberg had his meeting with his earliest advisers in 2006. for lincoln. if steven spielberg -- there was a writers strike and many other things, but it had to do a lot with not just schedules, but it had to do with financing. >> and it was going to be liam neeson. >> he was reading the part and there were other people involved at that time, but daniel day-lewis i think we know inhabited that character.

it's important that we also look -- in the 1960s or 1970s, on slavery actually we found on public television, for example. that was a -- and so that's there, too. question. yes. >> hi. i had a question that i think will actually build on something you all just said and mentioned

in the earlier comments. can you talk about the role that medium plays. we're all talking about film, and i'm wondering why there aren't great representations of slavery in television. i'm thinking particularly of of current trend for, like, contemporary western, so like "hell on wheels" or "copper" both of which i really like, but "deadwood" where former slaves appear. but i'm wondering why television doesn't seem to lend itself, given that we're in this renaissance of american tv with all the money and attention going there? >> you know, the hatfields and mccoys i believe was the biggest hit and made a lot of money, which did well commercially. you know, i take your point. i just remember watching all those made for tv movies, many dealing with the south "freedom

road" written by howard fast. a lot was made -- the autobiography of miss jane pittman. >> during the '70s you did have a lot of these films. some of the portraits of the period i thought were very wrenching and amazing. i sort of remember the first lynching on the small screen[;!d thinking, you know, this is an amazie ining moment. i think at the same time when i was in the 1990s, often pitching stories and ideas. i remember very distinctly what shocked me so much, being told that a story that we were trying to put across was too dangerous for television, because it was black and white, and it wasn't a concube iron. you could have a concould you bien, but not mother. anything that may offend southern advertisers.

so in some ways i think television is a medium that responds so commercially and waits for five to ten years later it becomes okay. i've been out of the country for almost ten years and i'm noticing it in the language on television, what is now acceptable. wait, they can say that on tv? you know, that kind of thing. >> on the other hand it used to be to get anything made with black characters, historically is the prominent karks, they to be done on television, thinking about -- not a feature film, would not carry a white audience. those were back in the '80s, i guess, but tv was a backup where you could afford to do things like that, miss jane pittman. >> roots?5, >> of course. the lastd.

>> i guess the last episode of the first series still have more viewership than any other mini series period, in u.s. television hit torrie. so that was really the moment, but you have to think about the time in which it was done. it was after the civil rights movement. people wanted to know more about african-american history. they wanted more ability to talk about it in a way they didn't have to go and read ten books about it or whatever. so people would look at those films, and it was really a moment, as wasij@v itself, where there was a lot of discourse across the racial divide. everyone was talking about various things. so now we have a time in which is very odd. we can have something like scandals, for example, but we can't necessarily have a film about nat turner, you know. so it's interesting that you

could have, you know, this black woman in the white house who really in many ways is running the white house, you know. the dream of sally hemings, you know, the fantasy, but you can't have, you know, you can't have a film about nat turners, though there's been a film about denmark visi, again on a small screen for pbs. we're in an odd place politically and socially with regard to race. >> i see wouldn't know whether or not now the small screen producers would want to take a chance on doing those kinds of film, because oftentimes the small screen does take, you know, their cue from the large screen or vice versa. it will be interesting to see. >> they were going to make a mini series about the children of pride, which was derailed by

roots. "gone with the wind" was shown for the first time on television in the fall of 1976, in november. not on thanksgiving weekend, but another weekend, and its two show us are still in the top ten of broadcast audience, but "roots" the last episode was higher. but i think in terms of the dialogue and popular culture, you had "gone with the wind" rearing up against, just the cultural icon, "roots" coming along and replacing it and interestingly the "children of pride" suddenled back into a manuscript. when will we get the many or complex stories, so we don't have the evil master, and as we know, all the mistresses were evil, because we watch all these films and we see their roles, and we see, you know, there isn't any portrait that's not stereo typed one way or the other.

that's why "mandingo" has such power, making it a grand mel odramatic saga, but i did hear more hands. we said to hear from you. >> i hadn't seen it since the '70s. >> you will get letters from parents about the tuition they pay. >> i know that as scholars. >> tony kay, i teach at penn state. we're all interested in scholars, you know, we want -- we want film maker to be interested in us, but i have a hunch that the film makers, that they are in fact really interested. the reason they want you as a consultant is they actually want that imperimetrimprimatur. they have a strange engagement

with the historiography, but it's often just a little off. when i watch -- it feels like a damaged argument to me. when i wash django, i feel like, okay, this is agency. it's not what i meant, but -- in some kind of strange way there's something going on in the popular culture that is kind of busted open a lot of the way that we have written history. it's about breaking up a kind of canon of black politics where you had two traditions, one is integrationist and one is revolutionary, or what have you. it came to me in james mcbride's novel where he portrays frederick douglass as a buffoon, and i thought -- so i think part of when we watch these things, it's what makes is so fraught for us, as if we feel they are

just busten a canon open. in some ways maybe that's a good things, but there's something that's really disturbing about it. i wanted to hear people think about, talk about, do you feel like -- how does it relate to the way we write history. the substantive depiction. >> you mentioned mcbride's novel, you know "good lord bird" i haven't taught it yet, but i had a number of former students reading it, getting in touch saying it ought to be taught. it might be the next film we have on slavery. you know, it's a 12-year-old boy disguised as a girl taken in by john brown in kansas, and we see harper's ferry, and stephen douglas, his meetings with douglas through the eye ofs 12-year-old boy, that will smith's son is going to play on the screen. but it is interesting, what they

choose to option, and they would take a fictional work, and a is a tirric work. it almost looks like it would be more in the line of django unchained. it will be interesting. though i hate to disagree with you, anthony, but i think if we brought film makers in to hear our panels, to hear people talk, to hear them promote their views, their scholarship, don't you think this is a lot of disagreement among people? i'm really taking this seriously. when the film makers call you, they do not want the complexity. >> no, they don't. >> and therefore they will also reject the scholar who doesn't give them the historiography that they want. >> they are engaging it in some way, just on their own terms. >> someone like steve mcqueen has an yesterday, his wife found it in a book, he put it all together and that's the

narrative. that's the stories. you know, i was very struck, powerfully by spielberg having scenes in his mind, telling the historians what he saw was, was it possible? could it be? it was like, what was the weather at the gettysburg address? could the flag have been flying? and then the several hundred-page screenplay gets shrunk down to a few months. so what is the question like? they're saying, can mary lincoln wear this? can she wear that? i say, well she was actually wearing black, she was in mourning, but the larger authenticity of the film was to portray her as a vain shopaholic, to portray her as someone difficult, and so she didn't -- she wasn't accurate. if i had been someone who had said no, she must wear the black, otherwise it's inaccurate, you know, i think it

would have -- i'm just trying to give you concrete examples. i don't think it's quite so mean-spirited that they don't want to hear it, but i am saying that i've found most people doing period pieces have their ideas in mind, have their scripts ready for the stamp of approval. can you go through and tick the three things that we will have to eliminate or xhang? i'm -- it depends, of course, many other film makers as said i find are amazing the way they absorb and they consider that they are taking a course and, you know, i'm very grateful that someone like tony kushner did read so and i think was able to bring him to life, i felt like i was listening in to the people who i knew, but he was interpreting them in ways i didn't know, and i think that is a sign of a gift that most of us don't have in our writing, and

we should try to admire these moments, these scenes at the beginning of "12 years a slave" the opening scene, i don't understand -- i'm just saying i've had more conversations with people about it, and that someone could make a film that's so powerfully open, it's a gender, it's about race, it's about slavery, and yes who is going to tell you what it's about? you know what i'm trying to get at is i think that can be the power of a, wo of art. sometimes i think it's very deliberate to not have it reflect good historical practice, but to be more complex, more open-ended, and, you know, maybe even at times just plain wrong, like when in "glory" when you have someone riding down the field slashing away at watermelons. really? massachusetts? april? once again at the same time the

slicing of the watermelon by this laterer has a larger meaning. so steam we have to have the people have their fantasies, except for the vampires. i think the film makers that i have met and the ones who write the scripts are really smart people. they're really quite intelligence, very, very intellige intelligent, but intelligent in a way -- they've been trained differently from the way we have, so that they are interested in, you know, the impact visually, you know, and what people hear and the overarching story on theme or, you know, thesis that they want to put forward. so whenever they come to historians, it's usually not as they're writing the work. it's usually after they have already worked out in their mind what the opening scene is going to look like, and the story holds together well for them,

but what they like to portray in one way. then on the other side is working with the producers to find out whether or not they're going to finance, so then you have to take into consideration what the producers want to see in this film, too. we're only one piece of the collaboration. it's interesting i want to snowe whether or not steve mcqueen actually shot the opening scene, which i found horrific. you know, the woman is using solomon northrop to masturbate herself. that's totally in somebody's imagination, but i do know most opening sequences are not filmed by the director. they're usually -- there are companies that do only opening scenes for them and closing scenes for them.

they used to just do the titles and the credits, but know they actually do the opening sequence. of course the director has to sea check that off usually the opening sequences are no longer shot by the. >> surely he would approve it. >> as i said, he would have to check it off. who sort of gets the audience in they no longer actually have complete control over the opening sequences.

>> in which he lifts whole scenes where is spielberg are drawing on so much more complex multidimensional issues and events. i wonder if the input would matter more. >> i notice steve mcqueen is visually driven. when people think about his other films, hunger and shame, they talk about him as just a brilliant visual artist behind #xñ i think spielberg is much more interested in accuracy than a lot of directors are, and that he is, in#ñ some ways much more like a historian i think in the way in which he decides to

depict something on screen than i think steve mcqueen is, who is really also just about the art of making a visually stunning film, too. or mostly, you know, along with an important story. >> so recently spielberg was given an award by the lincoln and soldiers institute by the gelder lair event, because his film is storytelling, his film is history. though i know the teaching and showing of amistad has been a focus of a lot of debate that i've been involved in, i point out that i remember taking my younger son to see it, and the moment in the film where -- which is certainly taken from the zong case, where the slaves are shackled and thrown overboard is one of the most visually powerful arresting scenes. when i went to the international museum of slavery in liverpool,

they have their own version of that. so it is something that -- that, you know, we deal in words, and we deal powerfully in telling stories, but it's something that we now in the 21st century, back to media, have to grapple with. will it be streaming? who is going to look at it? how is it going to feel? i think we have to bring both or students and the public to understand that stories can be told in many different dimensions, and i think the power of some of these scenes, so maybe we can deal withysy0do rather than the full film, and we can deal with the powerful medium of historical film, is something that can bring slavery to a modern audience. >> well, that seems like an excellent place to conclude. thank you all so much for coming, and thank you very much for our panelists for their very thoughtful and insightful

comments. american history tv in primetime tonight features lectures in history, programs that take viewers into classrooms around the country. at 8:00, comparing reconstruction and civil rights through the participants, tactics and lasting changes brought about by these era. remembers the civil war at 9:15. they examine how the memory of that conflict has changed from the 50 and 100-year anniversaries to present day. and at 10:30, the war on poverty, as oregon state university professor discusses antipoverty and entitlement programs that arose from president johnson's initiatives. that's all tonight on american history tv here on c-span3.

next dixon son college professor dissects steve spielberg's movie "lincoln." this talk is a portion of the s 2014 civil war symposium hosted by the u.s. capitol historical society. it's about 45 minutes. >> our next speaker is matt essr pinkser, the associate professon of history, at dickinson college. dickinson, of course is the almt mater of course of president buchanan and chief justice tawny, for what that's worth. matt is the author of a number of books and articles including lincoln's sanctuary, a history f of the soldiers home where wher lincoln would go during the he summer.

he is the author of a forthcoming book which i think will radically force us to thinb about lincoln in a new way.'s h it's hard to imagine anything lr that could force us to think about lincoln in a new way since there's so much on lincoln thath what else is thereat to say? his new book already called his "boss lincoln." he's going to look at lincoln a a party leader and a presidential leader. so i'm going to turn the podium over to matt and also let him talk to us about summer spielberg and lincoln goes to hollywood. >> thank you very much to paul, don and everyone here. it's a honor to be at a symposium like this, and to speak about spielberg's lincoln at a place like this is important for us to do.is is this is a movie that's now about a year and a half old.

it's not just the biopic about lincoln. it happens to be a fascinating study of congress. for those of us who care about c the history of congress, this is in the title of my talk, i e of connected with frank capras, "mr. smith goes to washington,"h because i feel like there is a n dark connection between them in the sense that both these o classics, spielberg's "lincoln" is instantly an american classic, and frank capras' "mr.s smith goes to washington" both depict congress in a dark way. a i think we should acknowledge that. and in spielberg's case i want i to explorest it a little bit deeper. the historical perception from people in my generation was generally positive. peo ry some of them were large as if the subject matter was wrong, it was the wrong subject to featurr people in the abolition of slavery. f

that's fair but it's such a biga criticism it's hard for m hollywood to address.w5k cap then there are small potatoes criticisms, then some came from capitol hill itself, things like whether or e not the congressman from connecticut voted for or against the final amendment. you know, and those criticisms e are fair, but they're very precise. however, now as a college professor, as a classroom teacher, as i'm preparing to hea teach this movie, and i have tos teach it because it's such a vivid portrayal of the period, i've been compelled to think a little more deeply about the th nature of the narrative itself. and in doing so, i can't escape the conclusion that at the end of the day in this movie about the passage of the abolition amendment, the 13th amendment ie congress in january of '65, at t the heart of that narrative, there is a conclusion that it r was passed with bribery.it

that not only was it passed witw bribery but it was passed with bribery that abraham lincoln atn knew about and condoned. i find that a very disturbing d conclusion because there's been a lot of scholarship on this us question, and the scholarship addresses this question, the sco although it's far, far more cautious about reaping the s. -- reaching the conclusions the movie reaches, and i don't think people realize it.t th and i don't think the historian who commented on the movie's release in the immediate months after it came out really e addressed this in great detail.o and i think that's because almost all of them, from what i can tell, watched the movie. they didn't read the script.they and, you know, it's because the script wasn't readily available except to academy award voters, and it was hard at first to get ahold of it. but now that i'm preparing to b teach it, and i've worked with d the script in great detail, i find all kinds of examples of ct other kinds of connections to a movie like frank capras' "mr. o smith" and i see the fiction that's in the heart of this e th narrative.at

this is a work of historical fiction.n i don't think anybody should be shocked at that and i don't mean it as an insult. i wanted to talk about that of r today and sort of diagram it for you even though the and spoiler alert, the amendment did pass. slavery was abolished. in order to get there from the opening in the movie, they had to rearrange a lot of details, so i'm going through that now. ould b as i do that, you should be aware that it's part of my effort to teach this movie, and i do think we should teach it, study it and use it. i created an unofficial teacher's guide to the movie. that's part of something we cal dickinson college, the house ad, divided project, which i mean t the eman si pags digital classroom, you will be able to see an unofficial ooffii teacher's guide to lincoln that

includes links to everything i' about to talk about with primary sources and images and even links to a script so you can explore this issue yourself. so let me remind you, if you can't remember, how the movie begins, right? of course, there is that great cinematic frame. you've got the kind of seated lincoln in the washington navy yard and the black soldier and l the white soldier recite the ya gettysburg address to him.s this is part of the poetic timee in the movie. one this is the sin hematic lincoln movie. at the end of the movie they have the second inaugural. but the heart of the movie's narrative opens with him describing a dream to his wife. and in that description of the dream, you realize in early january of 1865 that he is paringing to push for an abolition amendment to the constitution during the lame duck session of congress, and this is a shock. mary lincoln opposes this.

you'll waste your popularity, she warns him. when he explains this to wayne n seward and to congressman james ashley, the ostensible author on capitol hill, they're worried and shocked. this is a dramatic and sort of surprising move.re that's all fiction. now, you know, the reintroduction of the amendment hatt had been defeated the previous spring is real, but it was all telegraphed out in the open. this is not a surprise and it's. not something that lincoln comes up with in a way that was shocking to people.elp i mean, in fact, you know, in his annual message in december n of 1864 after he won that sweeping reelection victory, hen telegraphed it to the public and boasted about it, you might say.th the i'm reading now from that annual message. this is the state of the union address they delivered back thea when congress reassembled for e its session after the election in december of 1864. he says to congress, the next congress will pass the measure if this does not. he says, it's only a question ot

time when the proposed amendment will go to the states.wh and i read the next line almosto as a taunt.ine you might read it differently. but he says, may we not agree that the sooner the better, right? the sooner the better. w let's get this done. of course, the telegraphing of this reintroduction of the graff amendment during lame duck reinr session was done even earlier than the post-election annual sn message. the vote in the house the previous june of 1864, that had been a vote that was supported n by all the republican members of congress.pp of it failed because they required. the supermajority, and the supermajority that they requires meant that they needed democrats to vote for it, and they didn'td have enough democrats to vote for it. but in order to reintroduce the measure later in the session, presumably after the election because they don't reassemble te again until december, james ashley, the amendment's sponsors switched his vote at the last t

minute so that he voted no.in od he's the only republican who voted against it in the house in order that he could bring it d back up in january. and when he recalls after the ce war his strategy, he makes it clear, right that, they had nowa known all along that this was e something they were making a p platform of the now union partyw in the election of 1864, they were supporting an abolition amendment.they w they were going to fight for it during the campaign. and if they won a sweeping victory as they hoped to do, ria then they would introduce it in the lame duck session.reint and he spent the next several e months after the defeated measure in the house, it had already passed the senate, thate they were going to pinpoint, target wavering democrats in tht north, try to persuade them to switch their votes and go after them in december. this is what lincoln is telegraphing in his annual og message. it's all out in the open. annu of course, this is not the impression the movie gives. the movie gives the impression that the republicans are

bitterly divided over this and early in the movie you get acquainted with the blair ja family, and preston blair, you get the feeling they're opposed to this. none of this is true. they're radical republicans and they argue bitterly over a lot of stuff.18e but by april of 1865, they were not arguing unnecessarily over the issues of slavery. t that were differents in tactics. one of the speakers at this symposium is michael bloomberg. he is sitting over there. his book, "the final freedom"nc that offers great details about the nuances of the debates of es how to abolish slavery and how republicans came to it.lish but but by january of '65, the republican party was essentially united in the idea that slave ry had to be abolished and they len knew it had to be abolished by constitutional amendment, and even those who objected againsth the amendment and its language, they weren't ready to vote against it.tsth the only votes they were were targeting were democratic votese not conservative republicans.

the conservative radicals were arguing over reconstruction. they were arguing over what happens next.ose argu after the union is reconciled. those arguments were fierce andl bitter, but when the movie e moe portrays this tension between conservative and radical republicans with lyndon in the middle, it's conflating two different issues that really 's should be separated.yo you know, this plays out in a host of different ways. i don't have time to go into ali of it, but i do remember oneho m scene, and i think if you saw the movie, you'll remember it, too. classic scene. arguably the most teachable scene in the movie, at least fot a college professor. so there is this meeting of the cabinet where abraham lincoln defends his emancipation policy and explains to some skeptical s cabinet officers why they need to push for this abolition amendment. t it's like a cinematic version of that famous painting by francis carpenter which you see on the o senate side of the capitol, which is on the cover of doris e

goodman's book "the team of rivals." this is eminently teachable. this is abraham lincoln bringinh to life complicated, am constitutional arguments. and i've seen historians ngargue thrilled in their reviews of the movie celebrating this, and we should, okay? but that scene, as powerful as it is, that is circa summer of ? '62. do with the politics of the moment in politics of the moment in january of 1965 -- 1865. so what they're talking about ig '62 is what's still controlled by roger tawney and the votes are not clear. but by january of '65, tauney is dead. this is the court they now have the votes to control. they are still worried about the ultimate legality of the emancipation proclamation and the slaves there, but the dynamic has shifted has s am