MovieChat Forums > Ride with the Devil (1999) Discussion > The Dinner Scene Towards the End Was Ina...

The Dinner Scene Towards the End Was Inaccurate...

posted 18 years ago by bryanac625
12 replies | jump to latest

... because I disagree that Holt would have been allowed to sit at the dinner table with the whites.

Debate what you want about black Confederates, etc. I do believe slavery and the no-class status of blacks was the central issue of the conflict. Of course, even the North was racist as well.

Throughout the movie, we see how people speak of blacks and how Holt is treated and spoken about. And then, all of a sudden he's allowed to eat dinner with white people? Please!

[–] danielbaird-1 18 years ago

Firstly, believe it or not, not everyone was a racist in the time of slavery.

Secondly, you've kind of touched on one of the main issues of the film. At the start of the film Holt isn't really recognised as a person but as the film progresses we learn and the characters learn that despite the colour of his skin he is just as human as everyone else.

It makes sense that he is sitting at the table by the end due to the predjudices having gone from the characters.

We also know that he would have been living with them for a while and they would have come to accept him as part of the family.

[–] bryanac625 18 years ago

Interesting points. Yes, I do realize Toby McGuire's character went from calling him a n****r in the beginning of the film to respecting him as a man by the end. I think that was a good thing.

But you've raised an intersting question yourself: How far do you think the characters of the film would have taken "he is just as human as everyone else?" Maybe you are right, and I would certainly rather see these people (or anyone) overcome their prejudices. But most people do not overcome prejudice quickly. One hundred years after the Civil War, the nation was still struggling with its prejudices.

Would he have been allowed to be educated, learning to read and write? To advance on a job and be paid an equal wage? To sit where he wanted in a restaurant, on a train, or in a library? What if he fell in love with a white woman, would he have been allowed to marry her? Would he have been allowed to vote? These are all important questions raised when freedom came to blacks in this country.

It is absolutely wonderful to see people sit down at a dining table together. But sadly, the real experience was not so kind, and many people went to war to prevent such things from happening.

[–] PeterCotton 18 years ago

If you honestly believe that the reason for Confederate enlistment was to keep the black man down, then I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona I'd love to sell you.

[–] bryanac625 18 years ago

What movement in the south before, during and even after the Civil War do you see where whites were willing to share their status as equal citizens with blacks?

[–] PeterCotton 18 years ago

<<What movement in the south before, during and even after the Civil War do you see where whites were willing to share their status as equal citizens with blacks?>>

There wasn't a "movement," but is it completely out of the realm of possibility for ONE white family to allow ONE free black (a Confederate soldier at that) to eat at their table?

[–] bryanac625 18 years ago

No, it was not out of the realm of that possibility. but my point here was that was NOT the norm. Just because you would allow it, it does not mean that it was "the rule."

It is nice to see when people can sit and eat together. But that, by and large, is NOT the history of the South. I'm sorry, but it just isn't. That is all I'm saying.

And I don't say this with any bitterness, but in the late 1940s in North Carolina, my great-uncle was in an accident and bled to death because he was not allowed in a nearby white hospital. THAT was the reality of segregation, second-class black citizenship. Maybe we can't imagine how people could do something like that, but the point is they did.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bryanac625 18 years ago

<<Yes, I've read such a story before...but according to this it's a myth->>

Here's a tip... consider it a Christmas gift!

When someone shares a story of their own personal (in this case, own family) experience which was told to them by relatives who were there at the time, and particularly an experience of a tragic nature, DO NOT EVER- REPEAT- EVER call that person a liar. I don't care about some stupid story or your website link. It's not, nor will it ever be, your place to decide what I feel or what happened to me or my family. Hard to believe someone would be so insensitve to do such a thing, and right before Christmas as well.

To me the truth of this is obvious: in a society where people where people were lynched without a fair trial, where whites could murder blacks just because they felt like it, and then sit in a court room and be acquitted even though every one in that room could smell the blood on their hands, where killers repeatedly walked free again and again, it is no surprise to anyone that a man wopuld be refused medical attention and be allowed to bleed to death, all because he was black. If you can't see that, that is your problem, not mine.

[–] gheilers 18 years ago

Actually, isn't the story about Dr. Charles Drew a "myth"? Unless Dr. Drew *was* your relative in question, then yes, your story should *not* have been so easily dismissed.

But back to the original topic, we should remember that this was the "west".
I think politics in general was more centrist (actually more Libertarian) there, than in the "North" or "South" (excepting of course, the radical free-staters and jayhawkers). If the family recognized Holt as a decent person, they probably would have no problem having him at the dinner table, once they got to know him a bit. This region of the country had its *own* secessionist movement, during the Civil War, as they really did not whole-heartedly agree with the ideals of the North *or* the South.

[–] PeterCotton 18 years ago

I can't comment on your great-uncle, and I know a black sitting at the dinner table with a white family wasn't the norm at the time, but this whole movie was NOT the norm. Most blacks did not fight for the Confederacy. Most German Missourians did not fight for the Confederacy. That is why this is an intruiging story; it's not meant to serve as an all-encompassing history.

[–] rip_ford 18 years ago

I'm curious. Do you complain on the Spider-Man boards because a man developing superpowers after being bitten by a radioactive spider is not the norm? Do you complain on the James Bond boards because one man being so good at so many different things is not the norm? Do you complain on the Harry Potter boards because children going to magic school is not the norm?

If Hollywood was limited to depicting "the norm", there'd probably be a lot fewer movies. Has Ang Lee ever claimed that "Ride With the Devil" depicts "the norm" of the time period? If he has, I'm not aware of it.

The movie should be taken for what it is, a story about the characters contained within it. It certainly wasn't "the norm" for a black man to sit down to dinner with whites in that time period but for these characters under these circumstances, its reasonable.

[–] Border_Ruffian 18 years ago

Braniac625-
"The Dinner Scene Towards the End Was Inaccurate...because I disagree that Holt would have been allowed to sit at the dinner table with the whites"

Not a common event...but not an absolute rule.