The Woman King- 90% has begun to draw attention to its launch at special events such as the Toronto International Film Festival, while in some countries it is already available to the general public. The main accolades go to Viola Davis (The Mother of Blues – 100%) for his interpretation, and specialized criticism has been quite favorable in terms of narrative and character management; however, it has not been spared from attacks on social networks.
Keep reading: The Woman King leads the box office and is celebrated as a great film of African descent representation
Those who have spoken ill of the film have pointed out that a job full of historical revisionism was done, that is, that history has been modified and reinterpreted, and although in a certain perspective it is real, the truth is that a different path was sought to tell a reality Gina Prince-Bythewood (The Old Guard – 73%) decided to respond to such criticism by arguing that the public is used to blindly believing in history books.
But, according to his words, what few stop to think is that these books, for the most part, are written from the perspective of the oppressor where only one point of view is taken into account. As an example, he spoke of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus and he said that we have been taught to think that history begins when he set foot on the continent without taking into account that there were already people living there for a long time.
The special case of The Woman King It represents part of the history of Agojie, an all-female warrior unit who have historically been described as “African Amazons.” The film takes place in 1820 while these women protect the kingdom of Dahomey in West Africa. The main complaint is that in the little information that exists about these warriors, it stands out that the kingdom of Dahomey traded with slaves.
Gina Prince-Bythewood has already responded to this via Los Angeles Times.
Continue with: Viola Davis mocks trolls who complain about “so many” female characters of color
My problem is that the story they think we’re reviewing is actually being repeated incorrectly. And there is a great irony in that, a great sadness. You’re literally talking about something you don’t really know the truth about, and it feels like you’re doing the oppressor’s job. As we began to dig deeper into the research, we realized that the story of these women and Dahomey was being written from the point of view of the oppressor.
The filmmaker recalled that when looking for books on the subject, she only found one that was quite offensive, so she turned to a specialized researcher who worked with her as a historical consultant and who has published several articles on Agojie in The Washington Post. Leonard Wantchekon He was born very close to what was the kingdom of Dahomey and has obtained first-hand information.
Both insisted that it is not to minimize the slave trade, but it is also important to know their part of the history and understand why they had to resort to it. Secondly, Rachel Gatesa film specialist, mentioned that there are things that, without a doubt, need to be modified to a certain extent because there are quite strong stories, and it is more important to think about the cinematographic perspective of what you want to tell, in addition to pointing out that these complaints are not more than false worries.
It may interest you: Viola Davis joins The Hunger Games prequel
Finally, Gina mentioned that similar things have been done with movies like 300 – 60%, however, there were no complaints there about historical accuracy because it was not about showing authenticity in women in positions of power, which now seems to be offensive.