Review of The Woman King. Discussion is cool.

  1. I find it odd that Viola Davis' character #Nanisca is the same one in the history that had this to say about the real one:

  2. It’s certainly a puzzling choice to choose Dahomey as the nexus of anti-slavery power in the film. Anybody familiar with basic West African history knows the tragedy Dahomey inflicted on the local populations; it’s not simply that slavery was present in an ancient or medieval sense, it’s that Dahomey was a kingdom uniquely dependent on capturing and selling hundreds of thousands of people into horrific, chattel slavery. It literally fell because Britain abolished slavery.

  3. Apart from the films historical accuracy (or lack thereof), I just found the movie to be extremely boring. Saw it in a Sneak Preview last night and we left halfway through. I didn't even know about the historical controversy by that point.

  4. Movie makes no sense this tribe was awful and Enslaved all of there people and just wanted to keep slaves and they’re awful fighters they’ve lost countless battles what a dumb movie to make

  5. "There are many films with historical inaccuracies" argument is bullshit. This is not "historical inacurracy" but totally switching history of sensitive topic. I have no issues with pseudohistorical films or even fantasy, but Woman King "historical innacuracy" is kinda of "Birth of the Nation". If somebody made a film about Confederacy fighting to protect Black people there would be not taking about "historical inacurracies" but outrage.Woman king narrative is not "history based fantasy", but turning history 180 degrees,

  6. Maybe. But it also reminds me of something Ridley Scott said about making City of God. To paraphrase, the reason he heavily fictionalized the story was that the historical figures he researched were just not very likeable judged from today. So maybe this stuff is just about making an entertaining movie that's palatable to the masses. "There are accounts of Dahomey warriors conducting slave raids on villages where they cut the heads off of the elderly and rip the bottom jaw bones off others" doesn't sound like a feel-good movie to me (though I kinda liked The Northman).

  7. These filmmakers really said fuck it let’s rewrite history and then claim it’s based on true events. I’ll tell you right now this one is going to have totally bs ratings because of the fear of backlash of not watching and enjoying this film.

  8. The review comes off as very even-handed, praising parts of its production while pointing out the ideological hypocrisy of its messaging.

  9. It might be aggrandized but it's absolutely not a conspiracy theory. Corporstions stoke the flames of the culture war to deflect from class issues all the time. Amazon pushed against tech reform by framing it racially. Many companies trying to break strikes will invariably bring up "mariganalized groups." It keeps the proles angry, distracted, and fighting each other.

  10. the movie lies to you and it's trying to completely change history as we know it, while also creating more divide among the two races in the US. I ReComMeNd it!!! yeah ok.

  11. 300 had literal lizard men and guys with claws for hands. No one watching that film would think it was trying to give an accurate portrayal of Sparta or Ancient Greece.

  12. This was my viewpoint as well. Also to add to the legend being told... the end of the film is the one-eyed survivor re-telling the story to a large army. The whole film is narrated by him and thus he could be seen as an untrustworthy narrator embellishing things here and there.

  13. Lots of "why do people only care glorifying slavery now" commenters really seemed to have skipped right over that Gods and Generals paragraph, huh? This is not the first time, kids. Just the most recent.

  14. Don't need white people checking African history films when we've watched Hollywood produce a century of absurdly historically inaccurate movies recounting western history. There never seems to be these long explanations of how it's not accurate for any Viking, Roman, Greek historical pieces, all from cultures who were slavers, as was common back in the day.

  15. I don't have an encyclopedic knowledge of historical films, so you'll have to fill me in: which historical films a) take a group which not only owned slaves but actively murdered neighboring regions to acquire them,

  16. Thanks for the link to History vs. Hollywood. I was unaware of that site. I've only browsed a couple of the articles on topics I know a little bit about. What I've seen seems solid. I'd be interested in the reactions of others to the site.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Author: admin