Iron Jawed Angels (2004): Women Yesterday, Women Tomorrow
In the 1920s, women saw the injustices being thrust upon them and worked together to fight against it. It took a lot of hard work, and over 4 decades to get the vote for all women, regardless of race. 100 years later, women are still fighting for equality across the globe. In America, we’ve made tremendous strides, allowing women to be more independent than ever before. We see more women in the workforce, less financial and social dependence on men, and more women getting higher education. No longer are we living in an age that forces women into lives of domestic servitude that degrade their value and disregard their strength. However, this is not the level of equality we see across the entire world. Many countries do not allow women the same opportunities as men. As we move forward into the second decade of the 20th century, we must shift our focus to incorporate all women in every country, who have not received the same amount of focus as women in the west. The fact of the matter is, we are seeing a lot more than just voting inequality in countries outside of the states. In Saudia Arabia, women are treated like property, and can’t use basic freedoms without the accompaniment of the men. In South Korea, 53% of married couples experience domestic violence, and in 81% of those cases, wives are being abused by their husbands. These are countries where women are treated like second-class citizens, and have been unfortunately put on the backburner in favor of frivolous western needs. As American society becomes more comfortable for women, it will become vital that feminists focus their energy into decreasing violence, gaining equal rights, and fostering financial independence for women everywhere.
Revolutionary Cause and Effect
The French Revolution, much like the American Revolution, was a necessary and inevitable step forward. The people of France had become so fed up with their suffering that many were met with no other choice. They had already seen the unsustainable nature of Monarchy when leaders get greedy. After noting the success of the American Colonies, revolution was the first thing on their minds. The Enlightenment brought new ways of thinking to the country - and people no longer were willing to fall into the same economic system that they had been enslaved by for decades. They needed change, and were able to achieve it in a radical way. The conditions following the Revolution were bad, yes, but were necessary to ensure a future for France. Democracy is quite literally built into the foundation of the country - you can’t walk but 20 feet in Paris without seeing "liberté, égalité, fraternité" immortalized in some plaque or statue. While they had to outlast the depraved conditions following the revolution - as well as the questionable rule of Napoleon - they were able to eventually achieve the level of democracy they dreamed of. While it’s certainly not perfect there now, and likely will never be, the revolution was an integral step to achieving livable, fair conditions. The causation for different revolutions throughout history differ vastly, but every form of uprising has the same reasoning at its core: putting an end, or at least mitigating, the mistreatment of the public. We see this quite clearly in the economic oppression suffered in America and France prior to their revolutions. In places like Russia, and many countries throughout South America, citizens used revolution as a way to restructure the government into a model that was more capable of providing security for its people. While the outcomes from revolutions are not always beneficial, they are an important moral step and symbol of unity for many. Some of the many reasons people have revolted historically are
A lack of economic freedom,
Labor oppression,
Unfair legislation without representation,
A lack of security,
A lack of accountability on behalf of the government, and my favorite…
Capital-driven, worker-supressive economies.
If you put any movement, revolt, revolution, uprising, coup, or insurgence under a microscope you will find a litany of reasons. For many, it is a culmination of issues rather than a single reason. They vary, and for clear reasons, but all factor back into one universal truth: when people feel they are mistreated by authority, they will revolt. This can happen quickly, slowly, peacefully, or QUITE violently… and are even happening now, every day. Even small actions, like joining a union or voting in an election, put power back in the hands of people. These revolutionary acts may not equate to guillotining monarchs or throwing out emperors, but it’s clear that their intent is indistinguishable.
1776 (1972), the Continental Congress, and the Necessity of Revolution
In the latter half of the 18th century, the Colonies of America were at a crossroads. They had been pummeled with dozens of new taxes and had no sort of representation in the British Government. The colonists had to make a decision to do something that would potentially topple their homeland, but in turn liberate them from the suffocating reign of the british crown. Some opposed the idea of revolution, but nevertheless its support was strong. The colonies, ultimately, found success in this and became an independent nation. This, however, would not have been possible without the strong leadership and persuasion of our founding fathers (and sometimes, the critiques of those who opposed them).
As David McCollough states his book 1776, “In truth, the situation was worse than they realized, and no one perceived this as clearly as Washington. Seeing things as they were, and not as he would wish them to be, was one of his salient strengths.” While Washington had a clear view of the situation, the members of the Continental Congress were undecided as to what they should do. The fathers went through a very intense period of deliberation on the matter of independence, and there was a real question of whether or not the revolution was actually going to happen. In the end, we know what happened, yet we can see evidence of their doubt in historical documents, some of which are drawn on in the 1972 film 1776. The film, titled after a musical based on the book of the same name (confusing, right?) uses documents like letters between John Adams and his wife Abigail to weave a narrative about the founding fathers’ decision-making process. The film format is a bit irritating, and difficult to follow at times, but overall gets the point across. The jarring contrast of boring congressional deliberation and cheerful singing doesn’t strike quite the same tone set by McCollough’s book, and the acting is nowhere near comparable to the level seen in Cleopatra (1963). If the film has any redeeming qualities, it would be the incredible boredom one can infer was present at those earlier congressional meetings. Moving on to the subject matter, we see a relatively interesting development in the story when we begin to look at the significance of the revolution in our culture. The question of whether or not we should have revolted is easily answered in this context. American culture has become so closely tied to the Revolutionary War, specifically the identity of groups like the Tea Party and many political libertarians, that the necessity of revolution becomes unquestionable. While I do not personally agree with the views of these groups, I concede that they are very important to our democratic process and remind us of the origins of our country. The values that were put into our founding documents were contrarian to the idea of a reform-based change, as they all but called for putting King George’s head on a pike. The revolution was a natural step in the process, as we see in a portion of the Declaration’s preamble: “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” We see here a clear definition of what Americans believe(d) should happen when a government becomes too restrictive to the people of their nation. If we had not revolted, we would not and could not uphold this virtue, as it would become antithetical to the foundation of this country.
The Portrayal of Women in Power as Seen in Cleopatra (1963)
The 1963 film Cleopatra is something of a spectacle. When adjusted for inflation, it is evidently one of the most expensive films ever made, and nearly bankrupt 20th Century Fox. It was originally intended to be two films, but was condensed into a single film with a 5 hour running time. While it's easy to picture Cleopatra as a beautiful, gold-adorned woman in a massive Egyptian palace (after staring at Elizabeth Taylor for over 5 hours, it's difficult to to picture her as anything else), she was so much more than that. In the film, we see only a fraction of her influence. Scenes like the one where she floats down a river in Turkey in a massive, golden boat - which she actually did in real life - help to show her strategic strength and subtle power in diplomatic relations. While the movie certainly has no qualms with giving Mark Anthony his share of "tactical" screen time, it vastly overlooks the military and economic influence of Cleopatra herself. She is often remembered for her seduction, but few know that she essentially saved Egypt's economy by changing the value of their currency. She also was able to overthrow her brother by using strategic military power- a ruthless tactic, but necessary nonetheless. Her determination and diplomacy helped revitalize Egypt, and it became stronger under her than it had under anyone else in the Ptolmeic Dynasty.
The portrayal of Cleopatra in the 1963 film additionally speaks to a greater issue about how women in power are remembered throughout history. The eponymous subject of the film, she is seemingly overshadowed by her male counterparts. Despite being 5 hours in length, her many triumphs and skills are conversely overlooked. She was extremely intelligent, and wrote at least a few books on things like herbalism and cosmetology. She was very well-educated and strategic, but these qualities seem to be forgotten in favor of portraying her as lustful. Women throughout history have always been overwritten and forgotten, just ask Nur Jahan and Zenobia of Palmyra. Cleopatra is no exception, and although this film is accurate in many regards, it misrepresents her leadership and disregards her best qualities. Her success proves that she was smart, thoughtful, and competent - a message that is better communicated by historians rather than screenwriters.
Historical Evidence and Social Discussions in The Prince of Egypt (1998)
Many of the most influential and divisive stories of all time are biblical. The departure of jewish slaves from Egypt, as told in the Book of Exodus, is extremely foundational for billions of people all over the world. And while this story has been venerated for thousands of years, there is a serious question as to whether or not it’s actually true. Despite its lack of historical accuracy (the real “Moses” probably existed a few hundred years before the story was written), Exodus continues to be the subject of many religious discussions. Things like this- stories that have influenced our culture, but overtime have become antiquated and difficult to apply to modern life- are the perfect contender for a DreamWorks film. The Prince of Egypttransforms the story of Moses into an entertaining and enjoyable movie without the archaic language of the Old Testament. I’m sure if I asked my 9-year-old self if she would rather read a bible story or have it sung to her by Steve Martin and Martin Short - I think I know what she would pick. When you begin to consider how films interest people, how they can teach stories without reciting them, they become so much more significant. In a way, The Prince of Egyptis a much better source of history than Exodus. For those who aren’t historians, who don’t understand what “Wherefore do ye, Moses and Aaron, let the people from their works? get you unto your burdens” means, the book becomes unappealing and dry. Films, however, when done the right way (a la The Prince of Egypt), reignite interest in this type of history for children and adults alike.
The social issues examined in The Prince of Egyptare uncharacteristic of a DreamWorks film. Personally, I did not expect the level of historical depth and meaning that were explored. Additionally, it managed to incorporate music in a way I found tasteful, and aided in telling the story. The sorrowful tale of enslavement and oppression is not a light concept, but nevertheless the film treated these issues delicately while staying true to the original message. The Pharaoh, while cruel and dismissive in the Bible, is seemingly human at the beginning of the film. Over time, we see his development and lack of empathy for the people he has enslaved, and gain insight into the life of slaves in Egypt via music. The conflict between mono and polytheism, a very long and bloody debate; historically, is also explored… through song and dance. All of the important issues and conflicts examined in this movie are well-portrayed, and are further developed by the incorporation of music.
Overall, The Prince of Egyptreally is a stand-out among animated films. It takes a very difficult and ambitious task - retelling what is probably the most significant story in Judaism and other Abrahamic religions - and succeeds with flying colors. The story is interesting, poignant, exciting, and most importantly, stays true to the meaning of the book of Exodus.
The Mummy (1999) and Historical Accuracy, Cultural Relevance, and Storytelling in Film
Are films a reliable source of historical information? When considering the accuracy of The Mummy (1999), probably not. While many films are based on true stories or historical events, their poignancy or conflict is often exaggerated and favored over total accuracy. This is not a bad thing, by any means, but reduces the credibility of their storytelling. The Mummy is an obvious example of this. The film contains some historical truths, but generally uses the setting and cultural perception of Ancient Egypt to tell a story that is less about history and more about action. While egyptologists aren't citing The Mummy in their research papers, there is another question presented in this film: does adapting stories into films maintain their cultural relevance? Can films create a new form of history?
History, in a way, is malleable. There will always be a different way of teaching and a different set of events that people choose to highlight. For many years, students were taught that the first American colonies broke bread and collaborated with the Native Americans. Now, students are taught about the complex and violent relationship between the colonists and natives. There will always be a desire for objectivity with history, but this is a very difficult and sometimes pointless thing to achieve. While it is important to learn true historical facts, films can often serve another equally interesting purpose.
The Mummy may not be a detailed documentary on the societies of Ancient Egypt, but it is interesting. It keeps viewers engaged in this idea that Egyptian culture is grand and mysterious, and might even invoke them to study it further. What it is doing (quite effectively, I might add) is preserving history by adapting it into something new. There will always be a need for a renewal of history, and in some degree, that film adds to the historical canon of that event or thing itself. When William Shakespeare wrote the Tragedy of Julius Caesar, he chose to focus on Brutus and his relationship with the Caesar. While the play was based on real events, it was impossible for Shakespeare to know firsthand the personas of the characters. He had to make assumptions, and he had to dramatize some of the events. This kept people interested in that period of Roman history and created a new way of teaching about history. Over time, that play was adopted and sewn into popular culture, and those themes of Caesar are now public knowledge.
Films, much like plays, can transform history into something appealing and easy-to-consume for the masses. In 1897, Bram Stoker took the story of a 15th century Romanian monarch and transformed it into one of the most popular books of the 1800s. Granted, Stoker did not tell the story of Vlad III directly, but reimagined it as something new. In 1992, Francis Ford Coppola told the story in a new way with his film adaption of the novel (the film itself, ironically, was novelized). James Whale did the same when he reincarnated Mary Shelly's magnum opus with his 1932 film Frankenstein. These films, while not totally accurate to history or the source material, keep audiences interested and add to the film's culture itself. Which brings me to the next question: are the films creating new history?
In the case of Egypt, there is a long and rich history of their land, dating back further than most countries and cultures. Part of that history is their reception and portrayal in media. As time moves on, we gain a greater understanding of history and a clearer view of the events. Once, Egypt was colonized and many of their artifacts were stolen by western invaders. At the time, they viewed those artifacts as historical objects. Now, over 100 years later, we look at the colonizers' invasion and reception of the country as history. These films will (and some already have) become historical documents of how society understood the past. We are 100 years into a cultural revolution, one that I am sure will be fascinating to the scholars of the 22nd century. The way that people have come to understand events is dependent on what they have been exposed to in film. 3000 years ago, the things that people considered entertainment we now consider history. History will always be a highly interpretive and ever-changing thing, much like the cultures it seeks to examine.
The Mummy is an action-blockbuster that focuses on a man and his adventure in Egypt, which ends predictably. It has some true facts relating to the views of ancient Egyptians (yes, they believed that cats were the guardians of the underworld), but it mostly exaggerates the culture to make it more appealing. It is not intended to teach the viewer about the life of Imhotep, it is not an arthouse film that examines the nature of exploration, and it certainly didn't win any oscars. But it WAS the 24th-highest grossing film of the 1990s. People saw it, which means it had an impact. And if you ask me, if it has an impact, that is what makes it historical.