MovieChat Forums > Glory (1990) Discussion > Glory one of Cracked's 'Most Unintention...

Glory one of Cracked's 'Most Unintentionally Racist Movies About Racism'

posted 15 years ago by lenoradusk
58 replies | jump to latest

http://www.cracked.com/article/178_the-5-most-unintentionally-racist-movies-about-racism/

Granted, it's #5 of the list, but still.

(Some spoilers if you still haven't seen Glory yet...)

The author of the article's main point is that Zwick focusses too much on Broderick's role instead of expanding with Freeman, Washington, Braugher, and Kennedy's story. In fact, I thought Zwick did a very nice job of bringing the two perspectives together.

We see Shaw's conflicts with Forbes who thinks his friend's nutty because he's doing this ("I know you want to be Colonel, Robert, but a colored regiment...") and others such as the quartermaster ("Twit."), not to mention the Confederate policy of executing any white officer in charge of a colored regiment. Then we see the African-American soldier's perspectives. Trip, the spirited young former slave, belittles Thomas, the most educated soldier in the regiment, because he believes him to be "too white". Trip clearly has a chip in his shoulder because of treatment from his former masters. He gets some sense knocked in his head from Sgt. Rawlins in that very awesome scene. ("And what are you? So full of hate you want to go out and fight everybody! Because you've been whipped and chased by hounds. Well that might not be living, but it sure as hell ain't dying.")

Later, we see Col. Shaw ask Trip to be the flag bearer, which is a really great honor. Trip denies because he feels that it's not his war. Up to this point, they see themselves as seperate, not just officer vs. soldier but belonging to different worlds. But then after Shaw is killed in the charge, Trip rushes to grab the flag, shouts "Come on!" and is shot dead. In the very last scene of the film, they are burried right next to each other. In the end, they are all colorblind because they realize they are fighting with each other for the same common goal, equality.

In real life, Col. Shaw was also burried with his men. His parents had the choice of retrieving his body and burying him in Boston, in their family plot in Mt. Auburn, but decided to leave him because they felt that there was no greater place of honor for their son to rest with them men he fought with.

[–] poppab66 15 years ago

Wow, I read that link you posted and couldn't disagree with whoever wrote it more. There was nothing racist about this movie. NOTHING! It's a bizarre thing amongst some blacks and white guit ridden pansies to automatically piss all over a movie made by a white guy that touches on what blacks went through in America. This movie was great.
His gripe was that Matt Broderick got more screentime than Denzel and Freeman. His reaction: cry racism! Zwick doesn't believe the viewer will sympathize with blacks unless they see a white guy's reaction. My reaction: This was a film about the 54th batallion according to the memoirs of col. ROBERT SHAW. The movie is about the experiences of ROBERT SHAW. So, to me it stands to reason that the main focus of the movie would be, you guessed it, ROBERT SHAW. Although I will agree that as far as acting goes Broderick can not touch Denzel or Freeman. They could have cast a better lead man.
The rest of that article, although very entertaining was complete BS. I'm sure if the directors of the 5 movies were black, he would have taken a much different tone towards them. And before anyone hits me with "no black guy would make a movie like that" let me just say, I refuse to believe that every black filmaker shares the same warped, paranoid and ridiculous outlook on American society as Spike Lee and John Singleton.

[–] Razzbar 12 years ago

Such a rant, and you don't even bother telling us what *you* mean by "racist".

I thought it was chock full of dumbass *beep* stereotypes. Sho'nuff, yowza.

[–] !!!deleted!!! (3385874) 11 years ago

Plus, the author thought it clever to say that the band of soldiers was lead by Ferris Bueller and not Robert Shaw. That, to me, made the author of the article lose all credibility. And, the film is based off of Shaw's letters, so why should it not focus on him? It was as much is plight as the blacks'.

I used the strategy of going really fast and not falling in.

[–] PopSixSquish 10 years ago

Absolutely right. But as someone else pointed out, Cracked IS a humor/satire site. You can't take anything on it seriously. Of course most of it is patently absurd.

🐩 Power!

[–] activista 9 years ago

@poppab66

Let me just say, I refuse to believe that every black filmaker shares the same warped, paranoid and ridiculous outlook on American society as Spike Lee and John Singleton.

No,dear, they have certain outlooks on life because they are black men who have personally grown up with and experienced racism in this society. White people only hate Spike Lee because he's always been outspoken about racism, and refuses to drink the Koolaid,play the game, and act like everything's all right with society concerning black people when it isn't. They just don't want to hear him (or any other black person,for that matter) talk about racism, There's not a damn thing "warped, paranoid, or ridiculous" about his point of view. But the reality is, Hollywood has always seen fit to put a white protagonist in a story about black people and make it all about the white character more than the black characters--that much is true. I read the article some time ago, and the author did have a point---other people have pointed that same issue out,in fact.

[–] commanderkai 15 years ago

The guy who wrote that was basically an idiot. American History X is another movie that I really don't think should be on there.

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Fire God 15 years ago

I agree that the complaints are unfounded. One thing people aren't taking into consideration is that the movie is mostly based on Shaw's letters, and that he is the narrator. Maybe this was by far the best source of info on the subject they could find, and thought Shaw's narration was the best way to go, purely because no other way would have been as informative. Of course, if the story is told from his perspective, he's likely to be one of the main characters. So what? Would it be nice to have a story about this regiment that focuses more on one of the black soldiers? Yes. But it is also nice to have Glory, which doesn't focus on color, but rather has a white man telling a story about a black regiment.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 15 years ago

Well, I think there's a small degree of legitimacy to the claim - Roger Ebert, although generally positive towards Glory, raised a similar objection. It's a common trope in films to have a white protagonist surrounded by minorities, perhaps to make the films more accessible to a mainstream white audience (Dances With Wolves, The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond, Last King of Scotland being some other examples). But in this story I'd argue it was appropriate and even necessary, given that the focus was explicitly on Shaw.

"PLEASE DON'T DATE ME! I PROMISE I'LL WORK HARDER!"

[–] NoahBody 15 years ago

I'm familiar with the review you're referring to. ol r. ebert is an idiot when it comes to racism. His white guilt has him seeing racists in every shadow.

His major beef was "why have a white character" now ignoring the obvious racist stance that quote takes it also forces one to ignore history. Let me give it a S.W.A.G. maybe they had a white guy as the C.O. because..... *drum roll* because a white guy WAS the C.O.!

[–] activista 13 years ago

No,everyone on here is still NOT getting what the article is about---I read it, and it does make some valid points about Hollywood always having to stick a main white character in a story about black people, and always having the stories of black people be told MAINLY through a white person's point of view---look at THE BLIND SIDE or THE HELP,GHOSTS OF MISSISIPPI,MISSISIPPI BURNING for examples. THAT'S all that the article is saying. The point was, why couldn't the story have been told from a black officer's point of view--so what if it was based on Shaw's memoirs--the movie didn't have to be just all about him. It seems like a lot of you just don't want to understand where the author of the CRACKED article was coming from with that---but then, if you're a white person, of course you don't see racism because you're never affected by it directly, because EVERYTHING in the media reflects a white point of view,period. So of course you don't see racism in ANYTHING,because EVERYTHING in the white-owned media supports white people's view of the world more than anything else. That's how it usually is, but whenever someone points a legit basis for pointing out racism and how it's embedded in our very system, everyone wants to scream "Waaaah,gotdammit! You're making me feel white guilt just BY pointing racism the hell out! Don't do that anymore---waaaaah!" Hell, ignoring racism sure as hell has never gotten it to go away----so let's all deal with fighting it day by day,step by STEP, one group/person at a time---let's just get the job done, that's all!

[–] indy_go_blue44 11 years ago

Speaking historically, what events transpired with the Black Men (with utter and all due respect) in the 54th that wasn't shown that would have carried through and developed the movie? More tent scenes? Another prayer/song scene?

Through Shaw, a veteran of Antietam, we're able to see the formation of an all black regiment. We're able to see the problems he had with supply, the reactions of the other white officers to a black regiment... ie, the view at command level, something that could have never have been obtained by focusing more on the enlisted men.

Be aware that their were no black officers in the Civil War, though several became NCOs, so there were no black officers to focus on.

Could they have developed more of the black soldiers and told their stories? How would they differ from those we were shown?

I'm not sure Broderick was the right person for the role, myself, but IMO he showed the strength of a man who wasn't about to let his unit be anything other than honorable soldiers, and he did an okay job at that. Not all commanders were Sheridans, JEB Stuarts or Custers.

[–] joedogboy68 11 years ago

The point was, why couldn't the story have been told from a black officer's point of view

Maybe because the regiment didn't have black officers?

So your racism is strong enough that you want to rewrite history in order to put modern PC values onto a film about a historical event.

I guess that you are also arguing that "Twelve Years a Slave" should have had an a more diverse cast - with people of all races int he roles of slaves, and people of all races in the roles of slaveowners.

Maybe, since blacks make up less than 15% of Americans, they should make up less than 15% of the cast in any movie - so 85% of the 54th should have been non-black actors (and 51% should have been actresses, because 51% of Americans are female), and only 15% of the actors can be black in a film like "School Daze" about students at a Historically Black College.

[–] activista 9 years ago

@joedogboy

So your racism is strong enough that you want to rewrite history in order to put modern PC values onto a film about a historical event.

Oh,please---white people have always rewritten history to make themselves look like the victors. Y'all been doing that s*** from day one. Asking that the film be told from a black soldier's point of view isn't "PC", it would have made the film even more interesting,plain and simple---because damn near everything in the movies is from the majority white point of view. You completely misunderstood what the other poster was saying--also you rarely see any Civil War films exclusively from an African-American view,anyway. Ain't a damn thing "PC" about that---it's just from a different point of view that isn't the white point of view for once. How hard is that to understand.

[–] skrall-991-949327 9 years ago

activista...please don't let your racism get in the way of making your OWN movie. This movie is about telling the story from the Colonel's perspective. Not saying the black soldiers had it easy, but Colonel Shaw risked a lot too.

So...shut the *beep* up about THIS movie and make the story YOU want told. OH...so posting on the message board is your crowning achievement? Going to change the world by....well how exactly? Fighting with everyone? Don't just complain and criticize. That's the easy coward's way. DO SOMETHING. Lead by example, show the courage and sacrifice it takes to do this.

The soldiers depicted in this film had courage, bravery...and most importantly ACTED on it. If you had HALF of what they had, the story you want told...would be. There'd be no arguments about THIS film, you'd have your OWN.

But, that would take too much to do, right?

[–] dannieboy20906 9 years ago

Go do some research and present the memoirs of a Black soldier from the 54th Regiment. Then you have another problem, if it is a junior soldier you are going to get a limited view. The soldier can only write about what he sees.

Robert Gould Shaw had the advantageous position of being the commander. He saw the politics, the valor of his men, and the strategy. In the meantime, the viewpoint from the soldier's point of view was not short changed.

There is a racial historical error in the movie. The large majority of the 54th Massachusetts Infantry (Colored) was made up of free men of color from Massachusetts. I don't know, but it is possible that most of them could read. There were more soldiers like Thomas than like the escaped slaves shown in the movie.

The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank.

[–] Fire God 9 years ago

This activista guy is dismissively sifting through a whole lot, including how powerful the narration of this movie was. Without the letters, you'd miss out on that and most of the information provided in this film. Glory gives you incredibly important and interesting characters, including Robert Shaw. Unfortunately, not even Shaw's letters give you enough of the specific black soldiers who were in the regiment in question, but at least this movie does provide plenty of heart and soul from the fictional black soldiers. Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman, among others, present incredibly inspirational Union participants who helped to make this movie the great achievement it was.

[–] banders46 14 years ago

Yes, and similar objections have also been raised about the numerous movies set in apartheid-era South Africa (Cry Freedom and Dry White Season). I understand the sincerity of these objections, but movies (and all fictional stories, really) are about change and conflict. By bringing a white character into the world of black characters (or vice versa) in these various volatile situations, conflict naturally arises and characters learn about each other. If you threw out the Matthew Broderick character, or just treated him as a minor character, you'd still have a great story of courage and bravery, but it would be nearly as interesting, IMHO.

[–] cvsandstuff 12 years ago

You are kidding right?
It wouldn't be as interesting for people who are limited in terms of those that they are able to relate to.
The pattern is clear and irrefutable..
But Hollywood is ultimately about making money so it is what it is..

[–] activista 12 years ago

@cvsandstuff

Oh,so movies form a black person's view aren't interesting at all? White people can't relate to black people as just PEOPLE, seeing as we're shared the same continent for well over 500 damn years? What's so damn hard about that? Yeah, right,whatever.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

The primary difference between "access" film characters such as the ones you mentioned, and Glory, is quite profound.

THIS IS A FILM ABOUT AMERICA BASED ON ACTUAL EVENTS. THERE ACTUALLY WERE MILLIONS OF WHITE PEOPLE THIS WASN'T MEIJI JAPAN, HAVING A WHITE CHARACTER IN A WAR FOUGHT ALMOST ENTIRELY BY WHITE PEOPLE ISN'T RACIST, IT'S LITERALLY WHAT HAPPENED.

There's this psychotic notion from the OP's author and apparently that old dead bastard Ebert, among many others. That portraying a white man in a sympathetic or even positive light in the Civil War or the entire slave era is somehow racist. THAT IS RACIST. The slaves didn't free themselves. Sorry. And it took black and white people working together for decades for abolition movement to make it to the White House and that's when all hell broke lose.

It is fantastically racist to look back, with an almost childish concept of reality, and simply conclude, "white=bad, black=good, so any portrayal of white people must be bad, or you're a racist".

[–] pendragon235 15 years ago

The author of the article shows his ignorance right from the off.

Ed Zwick, director of The Last Samurai (starring Tom Cruise as the last samurai) and Blood Diamond (starring Leonardo DiCaprio as an African)

Cruise's character was never a Samurai and not all Africans are black.

As for Glory, Broderick may have the most screen time, but it's quality, not quantity that matter and Freeman and especially Washington own the movie with their performances.

[–] hachmom-1 15 years ago

I do know that some reviewers pointed out at the time (i particularly remember roger eberts review) that the film paid to much attention to the white soldiers and not enough to the black soldiers...but its a long step from considering this a flaw in the story to considering it racism unintenional or otherwise. Personally i dont think it is a flaw, it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing, and it gives you something to hang the story on. Just like the memorial to Shaw in Boston, where you see Shaw leading his men but you also see the individual faces of his soldiers.

It is not our abilities that make us who we are...it is our choices

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 14 years ago

it is after all Shaw's story, based on his writing

actually, it's the story of the 54th massachusetts infantry. and the movie is based only in part on his letters. the movie is also based on two books concerning the entire 54h mass infantry.

the fact that you think this is shaw's story and not the story of the infantry itself is the point of the cracked article. the movie could just as easily opened and ended with denzel's character (or any other black character) and given his death the movie's emotional climax, instead of opening and ending with broderick's character. the movie makes broderick's death and his sacrifice more important than the death of anyone else. and it makes it seem like they only had the courage to attack the hill because of broderick's inspirational sacrifice, as though they didn't have enough incentive to kill these defenders of slavery already.

but that was 1989, and studios thought white people needed a white hero for the lead or no one would watch. so really, it's the studio (or the american public, if the studios were right), that are racist, more than the movie itself. the fact that you wouldn't see a movie like this made today (unless the black soldiers are make believe naavi in a james cameron movie) shows that the studios took notice of the criticism.

a movie about black people fighting for their freedom doesn't need a white moses leading them out of bondage as the main character.

as the cracked article says, the movie is unintentionally racist. paternalistic or condescending might be a better word though.

and the movie is actually racist in other ways, showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns, or when they loot the south carolina town. and what was with the mentally challenged black guy. just because he's illiterate doesn't mean you have to play him like he has the mind of five year old. i digress

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

You are a racist. Plain and simple. There's nothing wrong with focusing on and positively portraying a white man who actually existed and fought and died in the Civil War. He did lead a regiment of African Americans. It happened. Call him "white Moses" all you want. IT IS REALITY. "doesn't need a white Moses" - see this is fiction. Write a fictional story, and exclude all the races you want, because you're a racist.

Every point you've made is complete crap.

"Paternalistic"? Liar. Not a single character portrayed saw Broderick's character in a fatherly way. Adversary, hindrance, boss, ally, friend even, but no one saw him as a father.

Name one way in which the film was condescending to black people. Seriously, try.

"showing the black soldiers acting like kids when they first get their guns" You mean showing HUMANS acting like kids when they first get their guns. Racist.

" or when they loot the south carolina town" WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE LOOTERS BEING WHITE AND DOING FAR WORSE MORON.

i digress

You never made a point to begin with. You just listed baseless conclusions and then vaguely referenced scenes.

[–] SpiltPersonality 15 years ago

Cruise's character was never a Samurai

Amen to that - the Last Samurai was clearly Katsumoto. I think that the author of that article seems to automatically think that the actor with the highest billing is the subject of the title.

Making Uma Thurman "Bill", Tom Skerritt "the Alien" and Kelly McGillis "the Accused".

Seems an odd way of looking at things. I would have thought taking your brain with you to the theatre would be a good start - especially if you intend to write a review.

SpiltPersonality

[–] guaili 14 years ago

Actually, remember that "samurai" can be both singular and plural. I believe in the case of The Last Samurai, it is used in the plural and refers to the last group of real samurai in Japan, as opposed to singling out a specific character, be it Algren or Katsumoto.

[–] SpiltPersonality 14 years ago

True, however I would have thought that to create a title inclusive of a group would have been something like the Last of the Samurai.

The last of anything is (to my mind) a singular not a group thing unless it is made clear, but you're certainly right - the title can definitely be taken the way you've done so.

SpiltPersonality

[–] morgan_gibson87 12 years ago

Most unintentionally racist article about racist movies about racism?

We must not check reason by tradition, but contrawise, must check tradition by reason - Leo Tolstoy

[–] indy_go_blue44 15 years ago

I think this is one of the best movies ever made giving an honest depiction of blacks and their struggle to be accepted as MEN. They're not made banjo-playing wooly pated children nor presented as especially heroic prior to the time that they're allowed to PROVE their heroism in the heat of battle. They could have broke and run when the rebel cavalry charged like many a white regiment before them; they didn't nor did they hold back when the main battle began.

The main characters were flawed but realistically so; their growth was realistic also. IMO even the unbilled characters were treated with extreme dignity and respect; even the drill sargeant beating up on Thomas was given meaning (such brutality was not at all uncommon; ask any marine about Parris Island) when he commented about "let him grow up some more."

It's also very rare that a private soldier is the focal point of a story (Red Badge of Courage is about the only one I can think of off hand.) Certainly they could have presented more camp life or "drill, drill, drill" or hauling logs but would that have been as interesting as Shaw dealing with problems at a higher level, such as trying to get uniforms or getting his men into combat and away from being a labor battalion?

But I suppose somebody somewhere has to cry racism about something. If anything, this movie increased this white man's respect for what these black men did for their country and OUR freedom.

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 14 years ago

They're not made banjo-playing wooly pated children

actually, many of them are portrayed that way in the movie.

[–] Promontorium 11 years ago

Right moron, because in an era of vast poverty and poor education, they should all have been wearing suits and speaking the Queen's English. You're so blind you didn't see everyone in the film was correctly portrayed to period. You're done racist. Toast.

[–] KingVidor 15 years ago

The Cracked article is the kind of garbage white dorks with little life experience write to show how hipster and "down with the struggle" they are. Immature, ignorant, poser bulls---.

Ask me about my total lack of interest.

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi KingVidor,

Amen to your post. The article showed the writer's ignorance. I have Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune, one of the books Glory is based on. I realized there were several ways the story could have been filmed, including adding Shaw's wife, the woman who saved his letters for posterity. It would be critiqued for being too romantic and people would complain about that. You can't please some people.

[–] therebel1776 14 years ago

Too bad they were fighting for economics. It was about dollars and cents. Nothing more....Nothing less. You can try to GLORify the war using your 21st century PC-perspective....in the end...Grant was a slaveholder, Lincoln was a white supremacist---if they knew we'd have a black President promoting socialism, black people dominating music and athletics-- we'd probably live in a very very different country. But you can fool yourself into thinking it was about equality or whatever else helps you sleep at night.

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi therebell1776,

There were myriad reasons behind the war but economics was at its foundation. The entire Southern economy was based on slavery and when it ended, formally prosperous states lost everything and fell into proverty that lasted for decades. I do have disagree with you about Lincoln. He grew as a man in his years in the White House and had different attitudes about race before he was elected President than right before his assassination.

[–] therebel1776 14 years ago

You're entitled to your own opinions, but Lincoln would have frowned upon the existance of Obama much less his ability to hold office---that being because he represented a mixture of black and white. He was quoted as saying blacks should be in a position of inferiority.

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi therebell1776,

I base my opinion of Lincoln's growth on the writings of Frederick Douglass. Douglass, who by the way was bi-racial, was an early critic of Lincoln's who later became his friend. He was a frequent visitor at the White House and wrote extensively of his growth in matters of race. Remember John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln because of extending the right to vote to men of color.

If you don't wish to visit you local library, there are a number of sites that detail the friendship of Lincoln and Douglass and Lincoln's change as far as race relations.

[–] nubbytubbybiatchesgalore 14 years ago

i agree with you completely, digialdiva. too many people quote lincoln from his debates with steven a. douglas, and ignore his later writings and changed sentiments.

to rebel1776, lincoln changed his views, and eschewed his earlier supremacists views (which were not racist as we would understand the term racism today. he thought blacks inferior biologically, but did not "hate" them. once he came to actually know african americans, he realized he was wrong). and his plans for resettlement after the war were not "racist" either.

and yes, grant owned several slaves, but his father was an abolitionist and refused to attend his wedding (threatened to disown him) for marrying a women who actually owned the slaves. grant was too poor to own a slave. the slaves (i believe two of them) came with his marriage.

and of course the war was about economics. but so was slavery. slavery WAS economics. the southern states didn't leave the union because of economic oppression. they left, as is stated in their declarations of secession, to guard the institution of slavery, which they knew lincoln would work to further undermine. yes, lincoln, at first, said he would not free one slave if it meant keeping the union together. but right after that he said he would also free all the slaves if he could still keep the union together as well. the emancipation proclamation, which, yes, freed only slaves in the secessionist south, was lincoln's way of saying "unconditional surrender or nothing, slavery is ending".

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi nubbytubbbiatchesgalore,

So true and thank you for your post. Someone recently shared the articles of secession from several states. Every one of them brought up slavery which was the engine of the economy of the South.

[–] Sweet_Canela1 14 years ago

Wow the writer of that article has no sense. I'll be back later with more detailed thoughts.

[–] digitaldiva 14 years ago

Hi Sweet Canela1,

I agree with you. The author of the article in Cracked was quite mistaken and his comments made no sense at all.

[–] Hancock_the_Superb 14 years ago

Grant did not own slaves you twit. His wife's family owned slaves but Grant never owned one himself, and personally disapproved of slavery. His memoirs make his views on race very clear; whatever his other faults, by 19th Century standards he was positively progressive on civil rights.

Lincoln probably was a racist, as virtually all white people of the time were. However, most people would see the fact that he worked for the emancipation of black slaves in spite of his racism more important.

And yes, the old "economics" canard. What Southern economic system was the Confederacy trying to protect and spread?

"That's what the elves call Justice of the Unicorn!"

[–] harveythepooka 14 years ago

All I will say is would it make a whole lot of sense if you had basic historical facts and also had personal an in depth written account of someone's thoughts and feelings about those facts and then left out the personal because the person happened to be white? That is what sounds like racism to me.

The movie is about the 54th, Shaw was in the 54th so end of discussion for me. If you leave a legacy you are going to get more screen time in movies than if you don't . . . so I guess we all need to work on out facebook posts a bit more in case we make it into the history books and posterity can know we just bought a new pair of jeans.

[–] Zanza8 13 years ago

Was Shaw or was he not the guy who put the regiment together, trained it, and fought for the right of the men to go into combat to do their part? Just how would you make the movie without Shaw?

http://thinkingoutloud-descartes.blogspot.com/

[–] A_Fistful_of_Pennies 12 years ago

Not only is he way off on Glory, he completely missed the point of American History X. He doesn't change because "black people are funny", he changes because he realizes many of the neo-nazis don't actually believe in anything and will sacrifice their beliefs for personal gain...oh and the black man SAVES HIS LIFE. It may sound simplistic but their relationship is so much more well-built than just the simple comedic banter, yes it is there but there's so much more.

If Glory is on this list for that reason, why not put "To Kill a Mockingbird" on there? There are countless movies where you can read into it as racist for having a white main character helping out other races, and in some cases it is unintentionally racist. Glory is not such a case. Actually this shows how Shaw and the soldiers learn from each other, and grow together. It isn't a white man saving a bunch of poor black people, it shows blacks being heroic and courageous when simply given an equal opportunity. It doesn't oversimplify things by making them purposely over-righteous either. It shows them as fleshed out characters. Glory is just about the least racist movie I can think of.