William Wilberforce

[poliphilo]

A long time ago- when I was learning history in school- I was given to understand that slavery was a bad thing that used to happen in exotic, foreign places like ancient Rome and the American deep South and then along came a brave, white Englishman called William Wilberforce and put a stop to it.

There's a new film coming out about Mr Wilberforce. He's played by that amazingly handsome Welsh actor who used to be Hornblower. In a clip I saw on the telly Hornblower/Wilberforce was the only guy wearing his own hair in a parliament full of smelly, old men in powdered wigs.

The real Wilberforce was a funny, ugly, little, religious person (he was about 5 ft tall)  with weird, puritanical views, who wanted to convert the heathen and shut down the theatres.  And, no, he didn't fight slavery single-handed.  He wasn't even the main man. 

And he didn't even end slavery. He stopped the tranatlantic slave trade- which was a step in the right direction, but that's all. 

Which isn't to say he wasn't a great man; he was. It's just- oh I don't know- the real story is almost always more interesting than the myth and it was John Wayne not Jimmy Stewart who shot Liberty Valance. 

And the other thing that gets me is how these stories are always dramatised as stories of white heroism. Remember Spielberg's Amistad? A black guy leads a below decks' revolt and captures the slave ship- what a film that would make!  But who does Spielberg  focus on? The black guy's hunkadelic, white, fuckin' lawyer and some white, fuckin' former American president who gets to deliver a grossly unhistorical speech about freedom.

Oh, come on. we're grown ups, aren't we?  Please give it to us as it really was.



Phwooar, what a babe!

Comments

[momof2girls.livejournal.com]

I think they use poetic license to give us the reality we're comfortable with, not the reality that really occurred (if that makes any sense!).

[shullie.livejournal.com]

but why are we not comfortable?... Why does everything- well filmes etc have to be sacharine coated ?

[momof2girls.livejournal.com]

Personally, I agree with poliphilo - I'd rather have the reality. But I get the feeling that the viewing public doesn't want to have to deal with the "real" reality because it can be hard to deal with. We don't want to have to think about the ugliness that really occurred in much of history.

[shullie.livejournal.com]

I know Hollywood has to make a film more superficial, re writes history and well, have a 'happy ending' in order for it's mainly American Box office revenue... whatever the reality. However, as this is a British film one would have hoped for a more realistic portrayal...

[shullie.livejournal.com]

ahhh just realised it isn't a British film..... enough said!

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Yes.

I understand it's a commercial film and it has to make as much money as possible but- well- I just think some subjects are too important to be glammed up like this.

When it comes to slavery nothing but the truth will do.