There are both positive and negative aspects of learning major documented

moments in history by the two popular mediums of literature and film. The 1997 film
Amistad, directed by Steven Spielberg, and the novel Mutiny on the Amistad, written by
Howard Jones, both retell the 1839 mutiny carried out by fifty-three Africans, resulting in
a pivotal trial concerning civil rights. While both mediums have their merits and flaws,
the medium of literature prevails in learning a detailed and accurate depiction of the
actual events that occurred in history. Using visual images for academic purposes can
serve as beneficial for research, and I presume the circumstances would be different if
Spielbergs Amistad was a documentary and not a Hollywood narrative. In this case, film
should serve as a complement to the book and not as a replacement to reading.
Even though Jones Mutiny on the Amistad is successful in confirming historical
accuracy of the events that took place in the early 1840s, Spielbergs film version
contains a lot of important moments that should be mentioned, which the book fails to
provide readers. The first advantage of watching the film over the book is the visual
appeal it emanates to the audience. A lot of students are prominent filmic students and
they understand authors content clearly if presented in a concise and easy-to- understand
format. The novel is very lengthy and full of detail, which is important for academic
research, but not so much for the overall meaning of the story. Personally at times I
found the book very difficult to read at times due to the overwhelming political jargon,
but after watching the film, the events in the novel became comprehensible and started to
make sense. Instead of giving up on reading the novel, I used the film in understanding
my reading of the novel. Furthermore, another advantage of the film is the theatrical
component. Due to the films construction as a narrative, the tension in the scenes build

up until we get to the emotional moment when we find out that the Africans dont
originate from Cuba whereas in the novel; (p. 15), it is said in the first chapter that the
Africans are indeed from Africa. Since the book is presented as historical non-fiction,
there is no need for tension building or theatrics. The other advantage of watching the
film is the presentation of the abolitionist movement. The film contains strong themes of
racism and civil rights issues, which alone makes the movie important to watch
considering there are very few films in Hollywood that attempt to attack these issues
without getting criticized. It is important for people to learn that issues of racism and
civil rights happened in history and is still happening today. In the film, we are
connected emotionally with the Africans and especially the hero of the film, Cinque. We
are able to feel Cinques pain when he escapes his chains and participates in the bloodfilled mutiny, we feel the same frustration as the Africans when they are unable to speak
to defend themselves, and we feel the happiness they experience when they are finally
free to return home to Africa.
The emotional connectivity the audiences experiences within the film is lacking in
the book and contributes to its major disadvantage. Jones presents the facts in Mutiny on
the Amistad from a very white perspective. Constant examples are given of how freeing
the blacks would affect various people and countries. For example, the Cuban planters
argued that too many free Africans would result in slave rebellions and they were worried
about losing currency because the African slave trade was highly profitable (p. 19). In
addition, a political election was occurring during the time and Van Buren was more
concerned about the situation affecting his re-election (p. 47). Both edges of the spectrum
seemed to be covered except the Blacks themselves even though they were the subjects of

the entire controversy. We hear only rarely about the Blacks and their circumstances over
the multitude of people trying to claim the Blacks as their rightful possessions. Perhaps
there is a lot of lacking information about the Africans story side of the because of the
language barrier and bearing in mind that they could not speak for themselves, however,
it seems like Jones is presenting a case to us without any victims associated with it. An
additional disadvantage of the book is the consistent repetition of the similar facts
throughout the book. This often leads to confusion derived from the amount of detail
presented to any reader. For example, Jones mentions the Van Buren re-election situation
a number of times in the novel. In my opinion, if the novel could have been cut down to
reduce the number of repetitions and wordiness to make it easier to read. Even though
the novel comprises some flaws, it remains true in its historically accurate content, which
is not something Spielberg can say about his film.
Amistad is a typical Hollywood film, meaning that certain aspects have been
altered and configured in order for people to pay money to see the film and be entertained
by the theatrical content. That being said, the major disadvantage in Spielbergs Amistad
is the inaccurate and misleading information found throughout the film. In its entirety, I
do agree that both the novel and film tell the same story and the film is faithful in
representing the most important events, but obviously little details are changed and
everything in the novel cannot be put into the film due to timing restraints. Firstly, the
audience is misled in the characterization of some of the most prominent figures in the
story. The main character, Roger Baldwin, is portrayed as an attorney who cares solely
about the advancement of his career and it is only near the end of the film when he finally
respects the Africans and views them as human beings and not just property. His

characterization was obviously altered to coincide with the theatrics of the film
considering the real Roger Baldwin was already interested in the abolitionist movement
before the Amistad trial and fought for a slaves freedom in a previous court case (p. 37).
Another characterization flaw is the fictional character of Theodore Joadson played by
Morgan Freeman. I do not know why Spielberg felt the need to add Joadson as a
character because it degrades the major role Lewis Tappan had in the abolitionist
movement. They portrayed Tappan as a religious fanatic when in fact, although he was
religious, he helped tremendously in bringing attention to the case because he did not
condone slavery or racial prejudice (p. 39). Another aspect the film exaggerates is the
idealization of Cinque. Typical Hollywood films tend to have a protagonist that
audiences can sympathize with. Even though Cinque was the leader in the mutiny, the
film portrayed him as more heroic than the other Africans and made it seem like the
mutiny was all his doing. For example, in the film Cinque kills the captain of the ship
with a knife, when in history, Cinque knocked the captain down to the floor with his knife
blade and left the other Africans to strangle the captain to death (p. 26). Throughout the
majority of the film, a lot of stress was placed upon the origin of the Blacks. The main
question was whether the Blacks were born on the Cuban plantations according to the
slaves under Spanish law or if the slaves were acquired illegally from Africa. The film
misleads us into thinking that there was a long period of time where the origin of the
Blacks was unknown. This led to the big dramatic reveal that the blacks are indeed from
Africa. Even though the film depicts some of the economic facts, there is too much
priority given to finding out where the Africans are actually from. Finally, another
drawback from the film is the final speech given by former President John Quincy

Adams. Except for Adams, barely anyone else during the Supreme Court scene speaks;
therefore, it gives the impression to the audience that they were convinced with Adams
case even though the case was a very grueling and exhausting process (p. 191-194).
This brings to light the superiority of the book and the reason why I think using
the book for learning or studying is a more academically sound methodology for
researching history. To begin with, the novel is very informative because it is based on
historical research that Jones compiled via people who are experts on the Amistad
subject, from archives court records, and legal provisions. This gave Jones a sufficient
amount of information to accurately provide a complete analysis of the events adjacent to
the Amistad mutiny. The historical detail of the novel is a major advantage over the film
because people who read through the novel know for a fact they are getting the first hand
and correct information. Even though there is very little knowledge of the Africans
viewpoints during the case, Jones remains unbiased in his presentation of the facts. He
fully explains how the Amistad case affected
the abolitionists who were fighting for civil rights; he explains the divide between the
Northern and Southern states during the Van Buren election, and the conflict between
America and Spain. The book is built on honesty and historical accuracy and that is why
Jones explains the effect the case had on all parties more than the emotional aspect
associated with the African struggle that the film focused on. Due to the historical
inaccuracy presented in Spielbergs version of Amistad, I have to agree that Jones novel
is more suited academically primarily because of the vast amount of detail and accuracy
the reader is going to get out of the book. Like I stated earlier, if the film was a
documentary I think that would change my stance on the matter, but you cannot teach

students about the Amistad case and abolition through a two hour narrative film.
If I were to be given the task of teaching the history of the Amistad to a university
session, I would definitely use the book as the primary medium for educating the students
on the subject. I am not completely dismissing the film because the film compliments the
book and adds a certain value to the entire learning experience. I ended up appreciating
the book more after I watched the film because of the emotional connection associated
with it, however for detail and historical accuracy, the novel should be the main source of
material used. The film could be incorporated into the lesson to move beyond seeing the
visuals as just entertainment. This could strike up a class discussion about the similarities
and differences between both mediums. I think it is the teachers responsibility to
address these differences to prevent students from believing some of the flaws the film
exhibited, like the creation of fictional characters. The details not included in the film
from the novel do not change the story, but these details need to be learned in order to
fully comprehend the events of the Amistad and the associated economic issues.