Talk:Amazing Grace (2006 film)

Accronyms

I believe the accronym, MP, as used in this section is referring to Member of Parliament. Is this correct? If so, we should change the accronym to its actual meaning.Dcbnmlt 21:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

MP does stand for member of Parliement. TaylorSAllen 21:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments about so-called Christian films

I have reverted the piece added by 07.151.255.113, referring to "the tide of Christian-based films" which, apart from not being an actual intelligible sentence, has no place here. It may be a very good film and well-received by Christians, but other films have no part in this article. Cheers – Agendum 14:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

2006 film?

Why hasn't anyone change this yet? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NFAN3 (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

The date struck me as odd at first, too, but I think it depends on what conventions are followed for dating films. It was shown at several film festivals in 2006 (see IMDB), though its general release is scheduled for later in 2007. I'm not sure which event counts. MayerG 04:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be 2007 too based on other films in the past released in early parts of the year, but screened the year before (see pan's labyrinth). Roboyang 18:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

It's contradictory to have the name of the article be amazing grace (2006 film), but the opening line saying "Amazing Grace is a 2007 film". I think it should be 2007. - Im.a.lumberjack 17:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I've added a bit under the 'criticisms' bit - I'm not sure about the proper way to do it, so just added a bit bluntly. I'd be grateful if someone could make it look neat & tidy. Cheers.

Criticism section

I'm not sure that the section stating that the film "manages to credit Wilberforce with inspiring" the riots in Haiti is an accurate reflection of the film. I watched the section in question again, and it mentions the riots in Haiti, that the island is under slave control and that they are "waiting for someone to set them free", but not that they were inspired to do so by Wilberforce. The only mention to Wilberforce's reputation is in the separate story about the woman telling her son about "King Wilberforce" on a plantation. Admittedly the film's mentioning of slavery from the slaves' perspective is limited, but I think the statement at present is a bit misleading and perhaps needs looking at again. Davery06 09:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've had to remove significant parts of it, as they were not cited as arising out of criticism of the film, but instead were observed inaccuracies by editor. We aren't citable. Find citations that speak to inaccuracies within the film, and they can be re-added. Without them, they cannot.

The film depicts Thomas Clarkson as having a rather minor role in the abolition movement. It confuses the distinction between the slave trade and slavery itself. Slavery was not legal in Great Britain itself, though it was legal in parts of the British Empire and would remain so until the passage of the Slavery Abolition Act shortly before Wilberforce's death in 1833. Any slave arriving at any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland would be a free man or woman - a point clearly stated in the 1772 case of James Somersett.

Certain major and minor characters are inaccurately portrayed; for instance, the Duke of Clarence (the future King William IV) is shown not only actively opposing Wilberforce, but also attending sittings of the House of Commons, something which, as a peer of the realm, he could not do. Also, Henry and Marianne Thornton, far from introducing Wilberforce to Barbara Spooner, as depicted in the film, were less than enthusiastic about their courtship and marriage. Barbara is also depicted as quite intellectual and very interested in Wilberforce's political career and opinions. In reality, she had little interest.

Other inaccuracies include the singing of the titular song, as although the words were written at that time, the popular tune was not added until years after; also, Charles Fox, depicted as leading the ovation for Wilberforce at the passing of the Bill, had in reality died several months previously.

Wilberforce himself was born in Kingston Upon Hull, and despite some of the film being shot in Hull, the film did not air in any movie cinemas in Hull, much to many people's dismay.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

This article could certainly do with a list of differences between the film and history. The above paragraph appears a good start towards this. 220.253.52.242 (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that Clarkson was pictured as playing a minor role! As for the differences between film and history, it should also be noted that the timeline towards the end is slightly changed and doesn't follow history accurately anymore: We see William and Barara awaiting their first child and then in the next scene it says "Two years later" - well that would be 1800 as William Wilberforce Son was born in 1798. And William Pitt doesn't die until 1806 - and between he had not been Prime Minister for 3 years from 1801 to 1804- in which year Charles James Fox also dies. So before the passing of the act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin19 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Historical accuracy

How historically accurate is this film? Badagnani (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

A movie is a movie and small details tend to be changed and time telescoped, but the film is generally accurate - leaning more towards biopic. (The British slave trade was my area of history research and a paper some years ago - long before the movie.) To be honest, I was surprised; I was expecting something like "Kingdom of Heaven". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.196.131 (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of this section was deleted by an editor who felt it needed references, which is probably right so I'm not going to try and revert the deletion but the information could probably be added back if anyone cares to source it (or phrase it more carefully so it is more obvious that sources are not actually needed). -- 147.252.95.82 (talk) 18:20, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

minor changes

I corrected the passage on the depiction of Wilberforce's illness; he is shown as suffering from colitis before the defeat of his initial bill as well as after it--it is not suggested that his failure brings on the disease. And Crohn's disease is one type of colitis, not the only kind, and it is not mentioned in the film, so its inclusion here was something of a red herring.

I also altered the reference to Haiti; the film does not suggest that Wilberforce and his movement inspired the Haitian rebellion. But critics are correct in pointing out that it is the only reference to such revolts in the film, when in reality they occurred frequently, often in British territories, though none were as successful as Haiti's.

Winterbadger (talk) 17:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I changed the part about the Duke of Clarence. At this time, guys with titles were allowed in the House of Commons: e.g. Frederick, Lord North, who was the MP from Banby even though he would have been a viscount at the time he stood for Parliament. I think the rule is that someone with a courtesy title may be a MP, but once he inherits his main title he must leave the Commons for the Lords. Someone may need to check this. [Deb] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.74.196.131 (talk) 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The section on the Duke of Clarence not belonging in the House of Commons is unsourced. I recently watched this film with the Director's commentary and they specifically addressed this point and noted that he was not actually a member of the House of Lords because at this point he was a younger son who had not inherited his title, and cited William Hague's biography of William Pitt as a source. It's entirely possible that Michael Apted was wrong about this but this section really needs a source if it is going to be included in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.41.16 (talk) 19:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The Duke of Clarence was a royal peer in his own right, having been created in 1789, so until his succession to the throne as William IV in 1830 he was entitled to sit in the Lords (not the Commons). The error of the film (which I have also seen) showing Clarence in the Commons is an error that earlier occurred in the film "Cromwell" (1970) when Oliver Cromwell's rivals the Earls of Essex and Manchester are depicted in his presence sat among the Commons benches!Cloptonson (talk) 06:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Reception" section

I've removed the following from the Recpetion section: "Amazing Grace has met with criticism for portraying black people as passive and incapable of participating in their emancipation. In the video, "Michael Apted, the director of Amazing Grace, chafes at criticism of the film's focus." CNN's Alphonso Van Marsh elicited angry responses from Apted when asked about whether the focus almost exclusively on whites as protagonists was itself racist. The film did not explore slavery from the black perspective. Only one reference is made to slave rebellions, in Haiti. Apted explained he did not set out to make another film such as Amistad or Roots, but to explore the legislative battle from the view of white abolitionists such as Wilberforce."

The one cited claim is vague and unverifiable since the TV footage is no longer available. The sentiment is not even true, since one of the three main abolitionists portrayed in the movie was black. If someone wants to quote reviews, please try to find print reviews that are viewable online. Thanks. The rest of the material is unsourced and seems to be simply opinion or POV. It's fine for Reception sections to contain criticisms, but these must be exact quotes, not vague aspersions, and they should be sourced and verifiable. Also, all criticisms must be balanced by an equal amount of positive reviews and quotes, especially for a film with as much positive ratings as this film has received. Remember WP:NPOV. Softlavender (talk)

Removed "Historical inaccuracies" section

The majority of it consists of rather apparent original research and absolutely none of it is sourced. 184.7.161.191 (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Reverted deletion - there is no OR. Most, if not all of the information can be easily verified by following the Wikilinks. Debatable points are qualified with terms such as "unlikely". WCCasey (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Qualifying statements with terms such as "unlikely" instead of using concrete citations is hardly encyclopedic. 184.7.161.191 (talk) 17:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The statement is linked to Somerset's Case, which states that "Somersett's case provided a boon to the abolitionist movement and ended the holding of slaves within England". The inclusion of the word unlikely seems to be, if anything, over-cautious. WCCasey (talk) 07:13, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This section on "historical inaccuracies" is an example of infantile nitpicking. Wikipedia at its worst. 70.192.16.234 (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Beeblebrox and TheOldJacobite (who seems to be off-wiki since November 2nd) may want to look at this, as I think(?) they have more experience in wiki practices along these lines. I myself do not like lengthy and gratuitously nit-picky "Historical Accuracy" sections in wiki film articles. These things are probably better suited for the Trivia section on an IMDB profile. Anyway, let's let those two users opine, if they wish. Softlavender (talk) 23:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• I do indeed have significant experience dealing with this sort of thing, but I'm up to my elbows in an arbitration case at present. So, consider this just general advice on the subject:

What people most often misunderstand in these situations is that it is not sufficient for a user to find a source that contradicts what is in the movie. They have to find a source that explicitly says what the movie got wrong. Drawing our own conclusions, even if we just know they are correct, is original reserarch and not acceptable in Wikipedia articles. Therefore, anything that cannot be attributed to a source that discusses the movie and how it compares to the historical record must be removed. Once that is done, you may find there is no longer sufficient material to justify an article section just for historical innacuracies, but if you do I would suggest moving it down further in the article. The current placement seems to give undue weight to this material. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

OK thanks, Beeblebrox. None of the citations for that section mention the film at all. All of them were written before the film existed, and most all of them are primary sources written in the 1700s. Therefore, until such time as there is further discussion and a compelling reason to reinstate the section, I have removed it and placed it here: /Historical inaccuracies. -- Softlavender (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)