MovieChat Forums > Emancipation (2022) Discussion > Historical Accuracy

Historical Accuracy

posted 2 years ago by emori (3661)
4 replies | jump to latest

From History vs Hollywood site.
https://www.historyvshollywood.com/reelfaces/emancipation/

In short:

- Aside from brutally whipping Peter, nearly everything about Ben Foster's character is imagined. In real life, according to Peter, Artayou Carrier was relieved of his position as overseer after John Lyons saw what he had done to Peter.

-Did Peter spend two months in bed recovering from the whipping? Yes

- The real Peter had a wife. However, his only mention of her is when he states that he was told he tried to shoot her when he was acting crazy during his lengthy recovery after being severely whipped by the plantation's overseer, Artayou Carrier.

- Peter's children in the movie are fictional. It is unknown whether the real Peter had children.

- He was chased "for days and nights" through the swamps and bayous by his master and several of his master's neighbors. To throw their pack of bloodhounds off his trail, he took onions with him when he escaped from John Lyons' plantation

- Peter spent ten days fleeing through the swamps and bayous, making his way more than 40 miles from John Lyons' plantation on the eastern side of St. Landry Parish between what is today Krotz Springs and Melville.

- In the movie, Will Smith's character uses a log to fend off an alligator in the swamp. This moment is entirely fictional.

- According to the July 4, 1863 Harper's Weekly article, which states that while serving in the Union Army in Louisiana as a guide, he was "taken prisoner by the rebels." He was tied up, beaten, and left for dead, only to come to life and escape to the Union lines. The abolitionist newspaper The Liberator stated that as a sergeant in the Second Louisiana Native Guards, he fought "gallantly" at the Siege of Port Hudson in May 1863, the Union's final assault to recapture the Mississippi River.

- Historical record of the real Peter after his time in the Union Army is unknown. It was never confirmed whether he survived the Civil War and reconnected with his wife.

- The Will Smith movie mainly fictionalizes its story around what Peter the Slave was quoted as saying when he sat for his medical examination on April 2, 1863 in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. It was then that several photos of him were taken that highlighted his scourged back. His brief remarks were published on the back of some of the photos at the time. As you can see from what the runaway slave Peter said during his medical examination and what was published in the Harper's Weekly article, there's hardly enough to fill a two-hour movie. Screenwriter Bill Collage used creative license to fill in the many gaps, especially with regard to Peter's children and the details of his escape. Most of the characters are heavily (or entirely) fictionalized.

[–] Kendricks (2239) 2 years ago

Thank you, I expected pretty much this level of inaccuracies considering the almost satirically horrible depiction of... absolutely everything throughout the movie.

I don't think anyone needs to debate about the evil of slavery itself and that slaves have been abused in every way, but the movie paints, literally, every single white man, or little girls, as hateful, evil psychopaths with no ounce of dignity, decency or honor in their evil, very, very evil bodies. I had to laugh at so many points, because not even Tarantino would have went that far.

The reason for this absurd depiction should be clear to the observant mind but oh well... what can you do. Leftist Hollywood is leftist. *shrug*

[–] emori (3661) 2 years ago

That little girl screaming "runner, runner, runner" was beyond ridiculous. I laughed how over the top it looked. She was screaming as if she thought she was in the Get Out movie and wanted her gang to catch him to get his brains transplanted )))

[–] Kendricks (2239) 2 years ago

Yes, exactly that.
The close up on her evil little face made me chuckle as well.

You know, they had a chance here to just make her smile subtly, to show that the world the movie portrayed wasn't completely black and white (no pun intended), but no, even the little one needs to be a massive cunt that just reeeeaally hates black people, because that's exactly how it was back then, every single white person hated every single black person and there was no in-between whatsoever and no point and no place... right.

Then he finally reaches the union troops and the first thing he gets to hear from a white dude is:
"Oh no, you're drafted! Welcome to the army, son!"

I think the only white person in that movie that was not a cunt was the photographer, lol.

[–] diagoro (490) 2 years ago

I think 'absurd' is too strong. I'm about 3/4 of the way through. As a film, think it holds up. It's war time, it's the deep deep south, and yeah...considering the penalties for helping escaped slaves, and the war time feelings/rhetoric, most white people he came across would refuse to help. The girl was overdone, especially the heavy makeup. But in general, so far it's been a good film, and looks really good as well.

This is about events that took place 160 years ago, when there's little historical evidence about the actual character. I can forgive the liberties they've taken so far. It's not like they show him becoming part of Lincoln's cabinet or best friends with General Grant.