My wife and I saw the Wilberforce movie, Amazing Grace, last week on one of our rare opportunities to see a movie in the theater. It was a beautiful, solid drama, much like the quiet British adaptations of Jane Austen, except in a two-hour timeframe not a marathon miniseries. In fact, I enjoyed seeing Michael Gambon, Ciaran Hinds, and Bill Paterson, all of whom I’ve seen in literature adaptations before.
Amazing Grace starts when Mr. Wilberforce is sick from fighting the British slave trade for years. He recounts his tale partly to himself, partly to a young woman who hopes to befriend him. And after some struggle, he recovers himself enough to fight again.
The real teeth of the story is in the political battles. It isn’t enough to argue the dehumanizing of trading men, women, and children for menial labor and bondage, nor the barbaric treatment they received in the holes of slave ships. The illogical counter-argument was that the slaves don’t appear to dislike their bondage or that the British empire would collapse if its slaves were sent home. Little ground could be made defending the humanity of slaves (similar to the personhood arguments we have today). So Wilberforce and his supporters had to find another way (which does not involve explosions or one-liners).
For more information on William Wilberforce books and articles, look into the links at Common Grounds.
I’m sure it’s only a coincidence that Hollywood never produced any anti-slavery movies during the reign of the U.S.S.R.
– we await breathlessly for their movies about the soviet gulag.
– we await breathlessly about the movies concerning slavering in tne Islamic middle east.
– but I’m sure I’ll die first.