Talk:Amistad (film)

References to use

 * Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.



Posted
I just quickly posted Amasted(movie), I should be back to clean it up. - Pingveno 04:10, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Movie was filmed in Rhode Island State House. That should deffinately be incorporated in the article about the movie. — Preceding comment added by RI State house employee198.7.225.189 (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Also the court scenes in the movie were filmed in the Newport RI Colony House

movie vs. reality
There should be a link to the actual case and a discussion of the differences.


 * I very much agree. Zahir13 03:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too, I wish I had the info.～～～～

Rating
I'm not used to editing wikipedia, otherwise I would do this, but it needs to be noted that this movie is rated "R" according to the MPAA. Thanks.Belgarion777 01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Van Buren election campaign
''The film shows Van Buren making a whistlestop campaign for re-election. This is an anachronism; the nation's railroad network was not sufficiently advanced in 1840 to allow such a tactic (although it has been noted much of the railroad network was in place between New York and New Haven, and also at various sites along the mid-Atlantic coast, so it was possible it could have been done).''

Which is it? --82.69.202.14 (talk) 16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Case Within A Case: :"Amistad" the movie plagiarized from book "Echo of Lions"
I think a section should be added about "Amistad" being plagiarized from Barbara Chase-Riboud's novel "Echo of Lion's", which certainly adds irony, and also illuminates the origins of the film. The interesting thing about this plagiarism case is that it was Jackie Kennedy Onassis who gave a copy of Riboud's novel to Spielberg and that's how he first heard about it. There's an excellent Internet site on this called Wild Realm Film Reviews: Spielberg and Plagiarism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.182.221 (talk) 13:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not tricked... per se
Unsure how this should be corrected, but in the 2nd paragraph of the Summary it says, "...the Spaniards have tricked the Africans by sailing directly for the United States." What is actually depicted: Cinqué is awake one night, looking at the stars, and notices when the stars start to cartwheel as the Spaniards turn the ship. Cinqué takes control of the wheel and, looking at the stars, turns them back to the East. When Cinqué wakes up the following morning, the Spaniards gesture to the rising sun stating, "Este."

The reason the ship arrives on the East coast of the U.S. (thus having traveled West) is not that the Spaniards tricked anyone, they just had no way to communicate that they were traveling against the wind and needed to tack in order to sail East, beating against the trade winds, across the Atlantic. Since I'm not sure exactly when the aforementioned scene takes place (though I'm pretty sure it happens before they run out of food) I'm not sure where in the Summary to place the corrections. Anyone out there who owns the movie and can make the corrections or at least a confirmation of when the scene takes place? Usmcrave99 (talk) 18:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Amistad (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141011015812/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_nav_rankings.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/info_sheets_nav_rankings.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Corrections of errors &
--- The Old Jacobite The '45,just what WP Guideline or policy is there against correcting errors?104.35.236.49 (talk) 15:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing Plot
The plot has some ommissions and error that I have attempt to correct and include. One editor said that it was reverted because I did not cite any references. I was unaware that plots needed citations since the document being described is the film. The president refers to 54 Africans having been initially imprisoned. One would die later but it remains the fact that 54 were imprisoned. There were more than Mende in the group. If you understand the African languages used during the film you will see a reference to presence of people (Tenme) that claimed a part of the cell holding area as their territory, separate from that of the Mende, another group of native people to the Sierra Leone area where the Mende came. The Africans were feed mush not anything that would produce crumbs. Crumbs are a specific type of food residue and they are not mush produced. When it concerns foriegn language titles translations are provided. In this case Amistade is not English, it is Spanish and it means "friendship". It is very fitting to understand that a ship named "friendship" is what brought Africans that helped shape US law.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 20:01, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Taking these one-at-a-time. Yes, movie plots require references same as anything else. At the moment you are not actually citing the film, but your memory of it, which may be wrong, or may be thought wrong by someone else whose own memory was faulty.  Got a cite for a script, a transcript, or even a clip and a time?  Then it's what Wiki thinks of as OR.


 * Next, if your memory is correct, and Van Buren did, in fact, refer to an incorrect number, that could be his character's assertion rather than the film's. If it was the film's claim, then surely it needs to be documented as one of its (many) factual errors.


 * Next, the fact that someone spoke Temne does not support that they were a native Temne speaker; it's widely used as a lingua franca, so the outsiders could be from another group, or several other groups. Again, a cite to a script or transcript would help here, or a director's commentary, &cet. would help.


 * Yes, the ship's name "Amistad" (note the lack of final "E", btw) is not from an English word; whether it needs xlation, and such prominent translation, is an editorial decision. Make your case for it, and make it as a single change, and see what the consensus is.


 * Oh, yeah...and get an account, instead of hiding behind an IP...   Anmccaff (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I have added  to the intro, that is sensible enough. Are there any sources available that support the plot changes? (If IP2605.etc would follow up on my talk page, I'd be happy to try and help.) Sam Sailor 20:57, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I dunno; that's prety prominent, and a little misleading. The movie isn't about "friendship", and the fact that the ship's name means  that isn't transparent to a lot of English speakers.  If it belongs in the lead, perhaps more like this?
 * Amistad is a 1997 American historical drama film directed by Steven Spielberg, based on the true story of the events in 1839 aboard the slave ship La Amistad lit. 'Friendship', during which Mende tribesmen abducted for the slave trade managed to gain control of their captors' ship off the coast of Cuba, and the international legal battle that followed their capture by a U.S. revenue cutter. The case was ultimately resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1841.
 * Anmccaff (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks better, go for it. Sam Sailor 21:30, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * if you know the difference between Mende and Tenme then you will understand the statements made when the attorneys took their table into the prison cell. The attorneys originally placed the table in the Tenme territory of the cell and were asked to leave then the Mende gives them permission to place it in their. That is why there are Mende and Tenme aboard the Amistasde. The number 54 is what Van Buren says when he says Why should he be concern about these 54 .....If you see the film they are not given any food that you can get crumbs because they are feed mush. Crumbs are from bread and cake etc not mush.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 23:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You have made no case, other than your opinion, that the translation of the ship's name is relevant. Are there reputable sources that talk about this and say that it is important?  If not, it cannot be added, and certainly does not belong in the lede. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 00:03, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

It is a material fact that it is stated in the film that there are 54 prisoners, not 53. Where does the #53 come from? When was there necessary a source to cite when it comes to the film plot. Eve if the translation is not to be included there is the fact that there were 54 not 53. Also it is a material fact that they were feed mush not something that would become crumb. So how you think that by replacing crumbs with mush is immaterial seems rather foolish. That comes directly out of the film. And just because you do not know how to distinguish Mende and Tenme is of your own lack of knowledge, that is not my responsibility. And your unwillingness to find some higher level of citation other than viewing the film just seems appropriate to how you handle yourself with contributors attempting to provide what is truthful information. Nothing in the film except editing it out will change the number of imprisoned Africans from 54 to 53; Nothing will change that they were feed mush and not some type of bread or cake that would produce crumbs; and nothing will change that there were Mende and Tenme aboard the Amistad instead of your assertion that there were only Mende. It all has to do with your weltanschauung--that is of your own lacking and non0initiative. You can keep the inaccuracies that you champion for. All that does is reflect badly on your work and what WP considers the truth.2605:E000:9143:7000:4541:FEA4:B7BA:FDE9 (talk) 03:53, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * All three independent reviews that I can find say 53 prisoners. Why don't we just say "food" instead of "mush" or "crumbs".  I haven't seen the film so I cannot comment on the presence of Temne people (not Tenme).   Dbfi<i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  08:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable solution. ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 14:37, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If that were such a wonderful solution then why was it not done. Obviously OldJ has not seen the film otherwise he would see the Africans feed mush. 53 is not mentioned in the film. If it is not in the film then why should we expect to accept as accurate what is not expressed in the fil. Instead 54 is said. Again that can be hear if you see the film? And if you did see the film or did not hear it then you were not paying attention. Plain and simple. The reviewers could be taking the figure from the book or advertising which is not the film.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC) How many times have their been adaptations of literature where reviewers hav taken references from the literature to expand the information given for a film plot? If it is not in the film then it is not in the plot because the plot reflect the document--the film. A reviewer can say all they want about a film and it can be absolute rubbish because it is not in the film. 53 is not in the film? 54 is, that is what the president mentions. Since when has blind selective reference been a tool used by WP to construct a film plot. If we do not rely on the film to construct a plot then we leave it open to include ANY THING to construct a film plot even if that information is no where to be found IN THE FILM. Some may call that speculation. Again, just because a reviewer(s) say 53 does not mean there were 53 in the film because it was not said and if they said it was 53 then from where did they get the number. If it is not mentioned in the film then they have gotten it from some other incorrect source and have just speculated. I know of NOTHING more true than seeing it in the film. How do you get crumbs when people are ladling mush into the hands of a group of selected people? "Food" is not the solution because it is mush that is clearly ladled into the hands of some Africans and it is musgh that is scraped of the face of a female African by another female African? These are not questions that can be discussed by those that have not seen the film or those scenes of the film when it happens. That is the same for when it is said that there were also Tenme in the group of imprisoned Africans. If you do not see the film or do not pay attention to the appropriate scenes then you are acting in ignorance. It is not my responsibility to prepare you to participating in a discussion when you are missing the necessary information found in the film.

One of the problems with US films that contain language other than English is that people in the US do not have language understanding skills beyond the only language they use. But someone's lack of understanding is not a very good way to indicate just what has happened in film and properly come to the construction of a plot that adequately reflects the film. There has to be a reason why the director and the editor have included that non-English language? A case in point: The English Patient. Almashy is not discover the Cave of Swimmers. Why? Because the cave location was described to him in Arabic. A place cannot be discovered if someone provides you with a description of the location because in order to know the description then someone had to have been there--natives. But if you do not know Arabic then your ethnocentric mentally would kick in and have you saying that Almashy discovered the Cave of Swimmers. When in reality he did not. That is a reason why knowing what is being said in a film, even if they are not the dominate language in the film, need to be understood and the facts appropriately expressed. Can Almashy say that he discovered the Caves when someone else gives him a description? No. But we can say that he said that he had discovered them, although he did not "discover" them. If you do not know Mende or you do not know Tenme then you do not know what is being said. If you reach your conclusions based on not know then you are functioning in ignorance. That is not the purpose of WP. Personally you can but WP is not your personal property otherwise it would be called after you. I am told as I have never read the appropriate WP policy or guider-line, WP is not a place for speculation.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * As I have already pointed out, there are no such people as "Tenme" and thus no such language. I assume that you meant Temne language.  We would have more confidence in your observations if they were spelled correctly. Is what you call mush not food? Perhaps you could read Wikipedia policy on primary and secondary sources, and on WP:Original research, but I cannot comment further because I haven't seen the film.  Obviously you have studied it closely, so perhaps you could indicate the point where they say 54?  Is this before the death?  The on-line script has no mention of either 53 or 54, only the reduction of 50, and the word Temne does not appear in the script.  It's possible that the actual film dialogue didn't follow the script, of course.  Wikipedia is primarily based on WP:Verifiability, but most of us here also like to ensure that all information stated here is accurate, even if sources get it wrong.  You are correct when you state that Wikipedia is not a place for speculation.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  21:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You do an excellent job or arguing a point under the guise of ignorance. If all that you can say is that a people or language does not exist purely because of a typo then that fundamentally says that your ability to argue by the facts is impossible with you accepting that there exist Temne people and their language. You seem to champion ignorance. I cannot help you in that matter.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2018 (UTC) You also seem to misunderstand or not understand at all what is a primary document and what is a secondary document and under what conditions one is suited to the needs of WP and the other is not.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for learning how to correctly spell the name of the people. I'm sorry that this discussion is not helping to improve the encyclopaedia, so I will not argue any further.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  22:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

And rightly so you should not continue in a discussion when you are fundamentally unprepared and incapable of doing so with the facts regardless how something is misspelled but on the basis of fact is correct. Plot have during the history of WP never having to rely on published soruces. In fact, it has been tradition when it concerns plot in WP to accept first-person accounts of what is seen on the screen. If you do not agree with this then you are again mistaken. When it comes to WP film plots being published in its articles what does not appeare in the film does not qualify for the plot otherwise you are enhancing a record that is basically your speculation regardless how many reviews say is something. A review doen not have to limit itself to what it contains to what appears in the film. In fact many reviewers attend events where they can interact with directors, writers, actors, technical staff to get a better understanding of the film but those interactions expressed are not necessarily in the film--they are only explanations and if not in the fim ir not from the primary document. If your source is a review even if it is three reviews, if the original information is not in the film then the representation in the review is irrelevant as it concerns a primary documentation source for the information to have been in the film. Yes, I understand uou have a difficult time understanding this. This is not unusual when it comes to people understanding the difference between non-fiction and fiction. The difference between history and creative non-fiction composition. But this seem to be a recurring theme in your expressions of ignorance and contempt for the facts. Reviews are primary documents for what a publication has done but it is not a primary document when it comes to what is in a film. In fact, many published plots when compared to those within WP film articles will be found to no longer reflect just what is included in them and will be found to include far more. But the difference is that usually in WP what additional information is included is found in the film and not additional secondary source. That in order to substantiate the secondary source it is necessary to compare it to the original--the film. If 53 does not appear in the film Amistad then it is difficult to substantiate the validity of your "source--the reviews. When it was finally mentioned that your source was a secondary source you lost position of validity because where it deos not exist cannot be used to substantiate a claim, something that makes it at best speculation; at worse, a lie. Something used to sway and mislead others. Something that WP does not champion or endorse. As to where the reviewers found 53 is up for them to determine but if it is not in the film then its validity is eliminated. Even if it comes from the original source of the story. If it does not appear in the film it is not part of the film. It is only part of the book. If that information is used to fill in vacancies then it is part of the review but can never be characterized as of the film because it never was in the film. Even if the director or the writer or the actor or the set dresser said that there were 53 Africans imprisoned when the Amistad was taken by the US it would not be fact enough to qualify as for the film primary documentation because they did not say it or indicate to it in any manner in the film. This all seems immaterial to you but when it concerns WP policy and guidelines it is not immaterial as WP is not the place where should speculation and misleading information be published unless of course that is the topic of the article. And I have yet to see an article or even a subpart that concerns erroneous and misleading information published by WP concerning the Amistad plot. So to say never is a bold statement on your part and since WP is not your personal property then i would expect there to be reconsiderations by the WP body of participants.2605:E000:9143:7000:2CF0:1BBB:E1E3:52EE (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * On the number of Africans, I agree that 53 doesn't seem to be mentioned in the film script if the version that I read was the one used. Nor is 54 mentioned, so I suggest that we remove the number, and ignore the fact that other reviews mention it.   <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  17:20, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have already done this. Theroadislong (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  <i style="color: blue;">D</i><i style="color: #0cf;">b</i><i style="color: #4fc;">f</i><i style="color: #6f6;">i</i><i style="color: #4e4;">r</i><i style="color: #4a4">s</i>  17:27, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well that was not too difficult and certainly would have been somewhat achieved earlier if ---<b style="font-family: Georgia;"> The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i>, did not unilaterally revert not one, not two but three film plot revisions and then now I find out that someone else lodged an ANI against him for another unilateral reverting  and then not willing to defend his action by providing an explanation is just representative that he/she is not in the tradition of WP very cooperative. And this action coming from someone having received so many accolade issued by his/her other senior editors at WP? Does not sound like the type of attitude that should be encouraged. But why it would be acceptable to accept a reviewers statement over what is the content of the film is beyond me and certainly not justifiable considering that reviewers are not limited to what is the film content. How can you verify information that the source is known and then when it is known it would not have been acceptable because it never appeared in the film?2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 12:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read No personal attacks, do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Theroadislong (talk) 13:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

You arebright that I shoukd not bring up bad behavior of other contributors otherwise it could have been mentioned his participation in an ANI on something similar. I am sorry for having done that.2605:E000:9143:7000:3832:5234:5BA4:7DB6 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced information
Below information was tagged for needing sources long-term. Feel free to reinsert with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Source material
There is an unsourced statement in the lead that the book is based on Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and Its Impact on American Abolition, Law, and Diplomacy by Howard Jones. Yet in the credits of the film Black Munity: The revolt on the schooner Amistad by William Owens is credited as reference material. A Prof. Howard Jones is thanked, but no work of his is explicitly mentioned. I can provide a screenshot of this if asked.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

This information is at 2:33:45 in the credits, if anyone is interested.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The movie is not solely based on Professor Jones's book. It was one of many sources used for research. He states this clearly in a December 1997 article about his visit to the set of the film. I updated the text and added the link to his article. Jamesluckard (talk) 08:10, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Morgan Freeman quote… should “sic” be added?
I took the time to look up the quote attributed to Morgan Freeman re: Spielberg and a particular scene: “Well, I loved the film. I really did. I had a moment of ERR, during the killings. I thought that was a little over-wrought. But he wanted to make a point and I understood that.” (Emphasis added to “err”.)

For the life of me, I cannot figure out what Freeman meant when he used that word. I’m wondering if this might call for the use of “[sic]” after the word “err”, to indicate that the quote is accurate, and the mistake (if any) is attributable to the quoted speaker, not the author/reporter.

Thoughts? Jd.varner44 (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think "sic" would be appropriate, per WP:SIC. There's no error in the quotation here, it's just sort of odd on Freeman's part. I'm assuming our quote here matches what the source itself used. DonIago (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No Portuguese language
There is actually no Portuguese language in the movie. All scenes which show Portuguese slave traders show them speaking Spanish, something not unusual in Hollywood. Knoterification (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)