Last night we saw a screening of the film Amazing Grace in a small cozy theater. At the end of the movie there was a fascinating talk by one of the producers Ken Wales. We learned a lot about how the film was made.The film follows the efforts of William Wilberforce to abolish slavery in the British Empire at the end of the eighteenth century. Wilberforce and his close friend William Pitt the Younger, who became Prime Minister in 1783, finally succeeded in eliminating slavery by 1807.
There's mention of the fact that Wilberforce was a Christian and some of his allies were preachers but this isn't an important theme. The movie makes it clear that Pitt, who was a prime mover in social change, did not share Wilberforce's beliefs. During the discussion afterward it was clear that the religious motivation was important to some people.
The title of the movie comes from the song Amazing Grace whose words were composed by John Newton, an ex-slave trader who converted to Christianity. Newton, who has a significant part in the movie, influenced Wilberforce and served as his mentor.
One interesting scene depicts a debate in the House of Commons in 1778. The newly elected Wilberforce is advocating the withdrawal of British forces from America, thus abandoning the attempt to put down the rebellion. Wilberforce is attacked and challenged to distinguish between appeasement and surrender. "It's merely a question of timing," he says.
This scene, and many others, reveal that Great Britain was a functioning democracy at the time of the American Revolution. It contrasts markedly with the general impression of Americans who tend to think that this sort of representative democracy was invented by them in 1776.
William Wilberforce's third son was Samuel Wilberforce ("Soapy Sam") who became the Bishop of Oxford and debated evolution with Thomas Huxley in 1860.
6 comments :
Can you really say a movie which is a
work of fiction even when based on real events reveals anything?
If anything only primary writings etc.
or other evidence from that time could do that.
...finally succeeded in eliminating slavery by 1807.
I don't think that this is true. As I understand it, the act in 1807 made slave trading/transportation illegal, but not slavery itself. That was 1833, I believe.
And we're talking about the British Empire, of course.
I don't know enough about this area of history, but my impression of the relative "start dates" for something recognizable as democracy is that in the nascent USA one can point to a specific date, time, and place, while democracy in the UK was a more gradual process without a clear, specific event.
So arguments about the relative ages of democracy in the USA vs. the UK seem to rely on the exact definition of "democracy" one is using. The political system established during and immediately after the American Revolution excluded lots of people, such as women, blacks, slaves, et cetera, meaning many modern definitions of "democracy" would not count the USA circa 1800, nor Britain at that time.
Anyway, I saw that movie in a cozy local theatre here a few months ago, though without the advantage of any of the film crew present (that I knew of). I enjoyed it, and I thought it was a pretty good movie in addition to the history lesson I got out of it.
“…. Great Britain was a functioning democracy at the time of the American Revolution.”
Well in comparison to much of continental Europe then I suppose yes.
But in the late eighteenth century the franchise was restricted to less than 5% of the adult male population. There was no secret ballot and “rotten borough” constituencies sent MPs to Westminster despite having few or no constituents. In one notorious case, the village of Dunwich returned two MPs even though the village itself had long since fallen into the sea by costal erosion.
Blackadder gets it about right.
How ironic that an apparent skeptic would comment on the movie "Amazing Grace" whose title song begins and ends with,
"I once was lost but now am found,
Was blind, but now, I see."
Dragon
How irrelevant that a Dragon would think that a post related to a movie constitutes an endorsement of the religious position of a secondary character in the movie.
Post a Comment