Find » Society » History » Review of "The Great Debaters"

Review of "The Great Debaters"

African American History Lessons in Film

By Shamontiel, published Dec 30, 2007
Published Content: 161  Total Views: 279,054  Favorited By: 72 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 3.0 of 5
When I saw the preview of "The Great Debaters," the movie didn't stand out to me. I just thought it was about a group of debaters who could possibly win a championship against another school, much like the other popular team movies that have come out over the years. However, I saw a movie clip of Denzel Washington on 106 & Park giving a lesson on Willie Lynch to his students, and I made a promise to see the film this weekend. "The Great Debaters" is based on the true story of Melvin B. Tolson (played by Washington), a professor at Wiley College in Texas. In 1935, he inspired students to form the school's first debate team and helped bring more firsts: the first black female debater Samantha Booke (played by Jurnee Smollett) and the leader of the first Black college to win a national championship. He also brought along two other team members: a stubborn but very intelligent and charismatic debater Henry Lowe (played by Nate Parker) and James Farmer Jr. (played by Denzel Whitaker). Forest Whitaker plays James Farmer, the college president, the first black man to earn a PhD from Texas, and a man who stood up for a legal case for Washington's character.

The movie immediately grabbed me when I heard the opening lines of my favorite poet's, Langston Hughes, creation "I, Too, Sing America." Not only did this movie give the audience English lessons through poetry and quotes of prominent African Americans, but it also gave some very important African American history lessons about topics like civil disobedience, the connection between Willie Lynch and lynching in the south, communism versus Methodist practices, the contradictions of W.E.B. DuBois, hinted at the story of Emmitt Till along with other young, black boys who were tortured before being lynched, a disturbing scene where the students came face to face with a lynch mob and a young, black man burned and hung from a tree, and how a sheriff in the town they lived in was the ringleader in a peaceful protest.

Review of "The Great Debaters"
Review of

Denzel Washington plays Professor Tolson

Credit: StrangeCulture.BlogSpot

Copyright: StrangeCulture.BlogSpot

Takeaways
  • Something the Lord Made is another essential African American History movie based on a real person.
  • Tolson is arrested for accusations of being a communist.
  • A young, black man is hung and burned as the students head to a debate.
Did You Know?
James Farmer Jr., one of the students portrayed in the film, is the real-life founder of Congress of Race Equality (1942) and an essential protestor for the Civil Rights Movement.
Comments
Comments 1 - 15 of 28
Next >>
 
...would've expected people like Frederick Douglass to mention it sooner or later. The more I discuss it, the more I'm starting to lean you all's way on it being a myth. On another note, NOTE TO READERS (CORRECTION): In this sentence on page 5 "This remark reminded me of the Jena 6 case, in which people should easily see how two equal people were given unequal treatment, Justin Barker along with his sister jumped Robert Bailey Jr. and after Bailey Jr. was beat up..." THIS SHOULD SAY JUSTIN SLOAN, NOT JUSTIN BARKER. I apologize for the misinformation.

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 6:01:18 AM

 
Treadwell and Ronald, I went to the DuSable Museum on Monday in honor of MLK's birthday (you can check that article out if you like), and in exchange for visitors filling out a survey, we got a poster of the Willie Lynch speech. This continues to confuse me because for the DuSable Museum to have SO much information on African and African American history, why would they pass that out? I've talked on Amazon.com and on here with people who continue to disagree that the Willie Lynch speech is real. My father was blown away when I told him the discussions I've had on here, and although I was very stubborn about it being real before because I felt like some leader had to come around to get it to become legal (regardless of it being a part of British history), one very good point that Darryl made was how no slaves ever mentioned this man. Even when they couldn't read and write due to being beaten for trying to get an education, oral history never ceased, so somewhere along the line, I...

Posted on 01/24/2008 at 6:01:44 AM

 
I personally believe that there is nothing more discouraging (historically) than the so-called Willie Lynch papers/speech or whatever it is SUPPOSE to have been. I believe that it is a "hind sight is 20/20" document made up to give us (read Black Folk) yet another crutch to lean on. Basically a "see how de man done kept us down..." piece of drivel. Many of it's inaccuracies came about after Welfare had kicked in (1935 through the CLINTON era) - if mom is on welfare - dad can't be around...high yella blacks versus the darkies...athletically gifted versus intelligence...even down to snitching (as the misguided youth of today call it)...It is a piece of garbage that had no business being in such a great movie as "The Great Debaters"...just my "old head" (well over 40) take on things...

Posted on 01/22/2008 at 4:01:12 PM

 
I liked "The Great Debaters," but one of the things that detracted from the film for me was the "Willie Lynch" stuff. The so-called Willie Lynch Speech or Willie Lynch Letter is a modern-day fabrication. Allegedly delivered by a Caribbean slaveowner to Virginia slaveowners in 1712, this document clearly was composed in the 20th Century: Terms that are used in the speech/letter like "self-refueling" were first used in the English Language in the 20th Century. More, there is no historical record of this document prior to the late 20th Century: Pioneering black historians such as Carter G. Woodson, W.E.B. Du Bois, and others never mention it, and it can not be found anywhere in the historical archives of the State of Virginia or in the archives of HBCUs such as Fisk or Howard, both of which are major repositories of information on African Americans.

Posted on 01/17/2008 at 1:01:38 PM

 
Book Girl, I am excited to see this post--although some paragraphs get a bit wordy. I've read an article on the movie on a christian website where the reviewer made disparages between the races. She felt that blacks were portrayed positively and ALL caucasians negatively. What was disturbing to me about the review--for which I did comment--was the fact that she blatantly chose to show her biases on a Christian website with no regard to how patriarchy within the Bible should have made her stand to attention at the victimization of women. Yes, I guess we all at times see things through rose-colored glasses. Nonetheless, her article demonstrates that racism in 1935 is just as alive and well in 2008. I applaud the movie because it shows that HBCU schools have forever been a seat of intellectualism. Even if there is some license taken to tell the story or protect the guilty or innocent, we should all be aware that history is reconstruction, and our story [(his)story] has always been absent

Posted on 01/09/2008 at 6:01:53 PM

 
I read in the latest copy of JET magazine that the reason that they used Harvard instead of Southern California was because the Great Debaters really did beat that school in 193, but since Blacks were not allowed to officially compete since Pi Kappa Delta wouldn't allow them in the honor society, Wiley College was never able to claim the title. I don't understand why they didn't use them anyway because now people will be trying to contact Harvard to figure out the truth of the deal.

Posted on 01/07/2008 at 6:01:22 AM

 
I loved the movie. The acting was amazing, the cinematography top-notch, and the scripting was nearly airtight. The reason I focus on the Willie Lynch issue at all is that I think it undermines the portrayal of Tolson, and cheapens an otherwise remarkable movie. I've read Tolson's poetry and prose. He was a brilliant man who would not have resorted to "Willie Lynch" (which, again, no one heard of before 1993) to argue with his students. The movie shows, in fact, that he was well-versed in logic, history, and facts, which is why he was able to train amazing debate teams that destroyed the competition. In fact, I wish the film had shown more of the debates, and kept the final historical opponent--USC--in the picture, rather than Harvard. Having Harvard drives home the point, mainly because it was and is the nation's most prestigious university, but it was unnecessary. My daughter loved the movie to death, and became even prouder of her heritage as a result. For me, that's the greates

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 8:01:14 PM

 
Shamontiel, my disagreement with you has nothing to do with respecting professions or professionals; it has to do with respecting facts and evidence. The evidence against the letter's authenticity goes well beyond language; did you read the information at the link I mentioned? One of the points that this historian and others make is pretty damning: if the letter were real, someone among even the formerly enslaved who wrote narratives about the horrors they experienced and witnessed would have mentioned it. Historians--especially someone as thorough as Du Bois--would be all over it, and at least one would have discovered it. If you do not understand or believe that, then you do not know how the discipline of history works. One bit of evidence is never enough. Your professor, at best, made a mistake; at worst, he was ignorant or incompetent. He does not stand in for all historians. I loved the movie. The acting was amazing, the cinematography top-notch, and the scripting was nearly ai

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 8:01:48 PM

 
Darryl, your information on slavery was something I already explained. Us going back and forth over whether the Willie Lynch letter is accurate or not is counterproductive. The point I made about my professor fit right into why I'm willing to believe that some form of this documentation came around. Just like my professor did not know that there was language before Greeks, there's a possibility that some of the words in the letter did exist, or like the Bible, was translated over and over again into common language of today. You don't have to believe what I believe, nor do I you. Disagreeing doesn't bother me, but I'm not taking someone's opinion as gold because of their profession. If that was the case, I'd believe everything in a history book, and time and time again, I find out that history books bend to what they want you to believe. Okay, we both have differing views. That's fine. It happens. But going back to the rest of the movie, what did you think of the film?

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 6:01:18 PM

 
These are people who are better than you or me at discovering information. As one historian notes, if this letter did exist, the historian who discovered or wrote about it would make a name for himself or herself in the academic world. It's been almost fifteen years since the letter first appeared, and nothing of the sort has happened, because it has all the signs of a hoax, as the link above outlines. In short, there's no need to *believe* anything; it's more important to have the facts and evidence. In this case, you don't need a ringleader to explain slavery and lynching. People like Ida B. Wells-Barnett and W.E.B. Du Bois, among many others, have already explained why that horrible institution and practice existed and persisted. Read them, not some letter found on the internet.

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 6:01:52 PM

 
Movements need leaders; systems need rules, laws, and willing participants, not leaders. Individual lynchings had ringleaders, yes, but lynching was a product of brutal customs that arose during slavery well before the Civil War, and that stretch back to antiquity. After the war, upholding white supremacy took on different forms, but this was not started by any single person. The Ku Klux Klan, Regulators, and other groups practiced lynching, but what they did pales in comparison to small groups and large mobs. In addition, it's important to note that hundreds of historians have researched and examined slavery, including many in the last thirty years alone, when historians have actively corrected the errors of the past, when there were few black historians. Going to any good public, college, or university library reveals this. None of these historians has ever found a single reference to Willie Lynch anywhere. None. These are people who are better than you or me at discovering info

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 6:01:21 PM

 
Shamontiel, the example you gave of your professor does not apply here. I'm not talking about one historian; I'm talking about several historians looking at--and for--the evidence (or lack thereof) and pointing out all the reasons to be certain that the Willie Lynch letter is a modern hoax. It's an interesting story, but it's just a story, like all urban legends. An urban legend's purpose is to keep people in line by making them ashamed of their behavior, and the Willie Lynch letter is meant to do just that. The problem is, it makes no historical sense. If you don't believe me, go to this web site: http://manuampim.com/lynch_hoax1.html. Debunking the letter has less to do with facts than it does with logic and basic knowledge of language and history, as you'll see at the link above. As for slavery needing a ringleader, that makes no sense for this reason: slavery in the Americas was not a movement; it was a system that lasted hundreds of years. Movements need leaders; systems need

Posted on 01/06/2008 at 6:01:52 PM

 
...not been one person, but I do believe a group had to conspire to be able to get this past the police, that or the police were involved. No surprise there. On a different note, there's an interesting article about nooses in the January issue of Ebony magazine with Denzel Washington and Oprah Winfrey on the cover. I'd recommend anyone interested in the relationship between nooses and Blacks to check out page 110. Oh, and by the way, Darryl, the one thing that makes me never take a historian's word as gold is that he/she always considers his/her findings facts until he/she finds out something different. It's almost like the evidence that he/she may have at the time seals the deal for him/her instead of believing there's a possibility for more information. That's yet another reason why I'm not totally x'ing out the idea of Willie Lynch.

Posted on 01/05/2008 at 5:01:49 PM

 
Darryl, what you're saying makes sense, but I just don't take the word of some historian as gold because they have been known to be wrong as well. I had a professor tell a class of grad students that the oldest known language was Greek, when in fact it was hieroglyphics from Africa. Sometimes a person who feels he's an expert may not always be right. You feel free to believe what you want to, but I still think there was a ringleader, if not for slaveowners, someone who started it with British loyalists. I've never seen an elephant smash a mouse, but I believe that can happen too. As for that comment about the designer on Oprah who says his clothes are not for black people, yes, that one is definitely something I've heard but didn't believe until I saw the show, and I never did see that episode. Anyway, I do believe that there had to be a group to consistently be able to carry on lynching after the 13th Amendment was passed. It is a slap in the face of the Constitution. There may have n

Posted on 01/05/2008 at 5:01:17 PM

 
...identify that such a thing ever happened. They just go by the word of trusted friends, and never look for the original source themselves. We are all guilty of this. More important, several historians and scholars, all African American, have pointed out repeatedly several serious geographic, historical, and linguistic errors in the letter that prove that it was forged. Second, it predicts how to keep black folks under control for "three hundred years," or something of that sort. How would someone writing in the 1700s be able to predict how to control black folks for a set period of time that--coincidentally--comes up to our own time? Third, he advocates setting black folks against each other by skin color. This is something that was a product of post-slavery times, not of slavery. He warns of the dangers of black women heading households. This is a product of 20th-century thinking about black women's place, not of the 18th century. The burden of proof of something or someone ex

Posted on 01/04/2008 at 3:01:08 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Comments 1 - 15 of 28
Next >>
Advertisment