The Awakening of the Third Estate

The Awakening of the Third Estate

Three estates are being represented through this famous work of art. The First Estate is represented through the man wearing all black.The First Estate represents the clergy. They consisted of nobles or a higher class society. The clergy owned about 10 percent of France's land in which no taxes were paid. Their jobs were to run schools, keep records and support the poor. They lived the high class, easy lives. 

The Second Estate is being represented through the man wearing the large hat. The Second Estate was the nobility. Nobles held the highest positions in courts, churches, and the government. The nobles had the ability to collect taxes from the peasants of their land so they could live extravagant lives while their peasants scrapped by. Nobles owned between 20 and 30 percent of land in France. 

The Third Estate is represented through the man on the ground. The Third Estate represents the rest of the population. To better describe their role, they can be broken down into three groups. Group one, the Bourgeoisie, consist of merchants, manufacturers, bankers, doctors, lawyers, ect. They are the middle class of France. They are the people without privileges or any source of power. The second group, Sans-Culottes, are urban workers, trade workers in cities like Paris. This class suffered the most when food prices rose and their wages did not. They are the people who pushed for equality in everything and were radical revolutionaries. The third group is made up of peasants who worked on farms. They were the poorest class. They struggled to survive and were not allowed to hunt, or even kill animals that hurt their crop. 

The message being portrayed is that the Third Estate is showing the time during the Enlightenment when the Third Estate finally started to fight back for their beliefs in equality.  They are freeing themselves from the shackles found at the bottom of the image. Demonstrated through this image is the social standing of the estates. The First and Second Estate are standing above the Third showing higher class ranking and power. They are also shown with fear in their faces and are appeared to be running. All while the Third class is getting up and reaching for the weapons. It is a very powerful demonstration of change.

Citations:

"The Estates." French Revolution, 23 May 2011, thefrenchrev.wordpress.com/tag/first-estate/.

https://thefrenchrev.wordpress.com/tag/first-estate/

"Picture Analysis" Humanities, rd9humanities.weebly.com/picture-analysis.html

http://rd9humanities.weebly.com/picture-analysis.html

Belle

Released May 2nd, 2014
Budget: 10.9 million
Box Office Income: 16.5 million



This film tells a dramatic story of a Jamaican girl, born of mixed color, being raised under the roof of a very powerful white family. This story becomes an icon for history because this woman was not brought into the house as a slave or servant, but instead as one of their own, white and wealthy. Overall, this film remains true to history and its basis is rooted in facts. However, it does have its changes and additives in order to create a storyline and capture the audiences attention.

We begin the movie with Lord Mansfield accepting Dido Elizabeth Belle into his home as a young girl, then we are swiftly moved to the later years of Belle's life. The first major event that captures the viewers attention and clearly points out the controversiality of Belles existence in the home is when Lord Mansfield has guests over for dinner. Lady Elizabeth, who is Belle's cousin and white, is allowed to dine with the family and guests, while Belle is told she is not. This of course is customary and tradition, but it leads to the question of what traditions are meant to be broken and which aren't. The producers add a very powerful quote from Belle stating, "How am I too high in rank to eat with the servants, yet to low in rank to eat with the family." This quote can be described as the whole basis of Belle's existence and the general question the movie is trying to answer.

 The movie, along with the main point of Belle, also focuses on the Zong slave ship case. There is no evidence that connects these two events other than Lord Mansfield who was the judge for the re-opened case. In the movie we see the progression of Belle's interest and influence towards the final decision by Mansfield to side with the insurers. This is the largest gap in historical context because there is also no evidence that Belle had any influence over Mansfield's decision or even cared to look into the case. It is said that over the course of Belle's stay at the Mansfield home, she likely had some influence on Lord Mansfield's views of slavery and equality.

Overall the movie gives great historical context to its main two points, Belle and the Zong slave ship. The storyline in which they provide this evidence is lingers with a mixture of both facts and additives for effect. Not only was this a very historically filled movie, but it was also a very well written and moving one. This movie checked both boxes by creating a historical film that could also be popular at the box office. Historically I rate this movie a 6.5/7 and entertainment wise I give it a 7.5.

Works Cited

"Taking a few liberties with the story of Belle" Maria Puente, USA TODAY Published 12:55 p.m. ET May 5, 2014 | Updated 1:04 p.m. ET May 5, 2014 https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2014/05/05/belle-true-story-movie-details-changed/8419041/ 

"Belle" Anabel Alfonso and Abigail Jones. Afterlives of Slavery. https://afterlivesofslavery.wordpress.com/film/belle/

"Historian at the Movies: Belle Reviewed" History Extra, BBC History Magazine. June 2nd, 2014. https://www.historyextra.com/period/historian-at-the-movies-belle-reviewed/

Amazing Grace (2006)

It was made to be historically accurate with some other drama included to make it more interesting for viewers. It shows the life of William Wilberforce. He was an abolitionist most of his life and helped bring about the end of the slave trade within the British Empire and is said to have helped to end slavery as a whole. He was idealized in the movie and was appeared to be "saint-like". He was described as a man who believed African slaves should be equal to all white people. The movie made it seem as if he was the only person who really believed that slavery was bad.

The movie itself was made good. If you want to watch a movie for fun, it might be one to consider. Although many true historical events were in the movie it was not truly historically accurate. while the movie describes the movement on the side of the British, through parliament and voting, it did not mention the fight outside of Britain. Africans and other slaves were fighting with their very lives so they could be free. they had been fighting before Wilberforce was there, and it was something that really should have been mentioned because it was an important part of the history. The focus was too heavily on Wilberforce. People like Thomas Clarkson were equally important to the cause yet he was just in the movies as some kind of sidekick and supporting character.

Wilberforce was not as great a man as the movies depicted. He did not actually think that the slaves of different races should be equal. He actually thought they would be great as peasants, but he didn't think that they should have quite the same rights. For instance, if he had a dinner party with black and Asian people, he would seat them where no one else would see them. In the film, it seems as if Wilberforce supports women's rights, but that is also not true. The fact that he was shown as a saint was irritating because he was definitely not one of the most important person to ending the movement. he did play a key role, but was not as big as the movie made it seem.

An interesting thing about this movie is that it is a story about how hard slavery was to the British upper class. Although the film is about trying to end slavery for the African people, it only shows how It affected former slave owners and not the actual people that suffered. Another point that is frustrating in the film is that there were almost no Africans in the film. it is a story about abolishing slavery and freeing these people from the great hardships they had and yet they are not shown in the film. The only one that makes a short appearance is Olaudah Equiano, and he only makes it to one scene and is the only African shown with a speaking part. In the readings for this class Equiano is the one who is written about in the textbook. Wilberforce isn't in the reading.

As a movie to watch it is not a bad one, but if you want a story about the abolition of the slave trade this  movie is probably not a good one to go off of because slaves are not even shown.



Works Cited

    Dargis, Manohla. “The Imperfect Soul Who Helped Bring an End to the Slave Trade.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Feb. 2007, www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/movies/23amaz.html.

Tunzelmann, Alex von. “Is Amazing Grace's Take on the Slave Trade Historically Accurate?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 19 Feb. 2015, www.theguardian.com/film/2015/feb/19/is-amazing-grace-film-historically-accurate-william-wilberforce-abolition-slavery.

Institute of Historical Research, et al. “Amazing Grace.” (BBC 4), www.history.ac.uk/1807commemorated/media/reviews/amazing.html.

“Amazing Grace or Disgrace?” Evening Standard, Evening Standard, 10 Apr. 2012, www.standard.co.uk/go/london/film/amazing-grace-or-disgrace-7169498.html.