Talk:Friendly Persuasion (1956 film)

Josh
Josh (intently): Father thy knows we must fight.

Jess (thoughtfully): If thou has a sword in thy heart Josh pull it out and use it. But there's no sword in my heart no man is my enemy.

Josh: Well any man who kills innocent women and children is my enemy...my mortal enemy!

Jess: There's not one of us here who wouldn't die to defend the others but that's not what thy will be ask...what thy will be asked is to kill.

Josh: I know that...I'll kill if I have to.

Eliza (upset): Josh! thou shalt not kill!

Josh (now crying): Oh mother I hate fighting...I don't want to die!..I don't know if I could kill anyone if I tried!...but I have to try so long as others have too!


 * Uh, what's the point of having this quote on the talk page? SlowJog (talk) 08:19, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Quaker elder?
As I understand it, Quakers are highly egalitarian and I don't think such a term or concept exists with them. Is "an elderly Quaker" intended? Mutt Lunker (talk) 08:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the term is used. Will remove the tag. Mutt Lunker (talk) 11:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pacifism
I made an edit to the this entry that felt like it needed more than a few terse words of explanation. The first paragraph originally concluded with the sentence "The father of the family is gradually converted to supporting the war." This is misleading to the point that it misses the whole point of the movie. The father was never opposed to the aims of the war (so conversion in that regard was unnecessary) but he never once changed attitude toward the evils of warfare (so conversion in that regard was refused). It was the son, not the father, who wound up actually changing his stance toward fighting and killing. The son joined a militia and took part in an actual battle. The father, on the other hand, went to the battlefield only to make sure his son was still alive. Along the way he was even ambushed, and while he fought to defend himself from immediate attack, once his attacker was disarmed the father told the Confederate soldier to walk away, saying "I'll not harm thee." Even under extreme duress (anxiety for his son, anger over having just discovered the dead body of a friend, and fear for his own life), the father nevertheless held on to his pacifist beliefs. That is what makes the film so magnificent - it doesn't judge the son's decision as wrong, and it accepts that the son might very well be right, but the film also has the generosity of acknowledging the father's own heroism by *not* fighting.

I realize that this strays into the realm of opinion or even ideology, which is why I'm probably taking too long to explain this. But saying that the father "converted" to supporting the war is also an ideological judgment. That's why I changed the sentence merely to reflect that the family members had their pacifist beliefs "tested". Sorry for being so long-winded in this explanation.

71.201.53.242 (talk) 23:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for the anonymous comment above - it was from me. AnneTG (talk) 23:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Friendly Persuasion (1956 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/20130520133914/http://www.afriendlyletter.com/afl122.html to http://www.afriendlyletter.com/afl122.html

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) 14:34, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

What are the inaccuracies?
According to the lede, "The film ... faced some criticism for inaccuracies in portraying Quaker views." I'd like to see a section added about those inaccuracies. In fact, one of the reasons I cam to this article was to see if the movie had inaccuracies in portraying Quakers, and what those inaccuracies might be. SlowJog (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @SlowJog, it's in the Reception section:  Schazjmd   (talk)  08:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)