Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

Harriet Movie – Chekhov’s Gun versus “White Savior” Trope

I saw the movie Harriet recently and I was impressed by its scope and the power of its storytelling. I wanted to share some positive word-of-mouth to assist in it being a success, but discovered quite a bit of criticism against the movie on social media. This essay is not a review of the film, but rather a discussion regarding a few aspects of criticism I feel is unfair and a misreading of the film’s dramatic intent.

Before I begin, here is a fair warning to anyone who hasn’t seen the movie. There will be spoilers.

Also to give some background information about myself, I took two screenwriting classes at Wayne State University years ago. That trained me to understand the structures and functions of screenplays. I have a Master’s Degree from Sonoma State University as an Historian of Science, which gave me training regarding historical methods. I am also the author of two novels that are epic historic fantasies set in the time of Charlemagne and are adaptations from epic poems written over 500 years ago. Taken together, it means that I recognize the challenges faced with adapting source material with the concept of balancing historical accuracy with dramatic needs. This movie is not a documentary, but instead is a dramatization of the life of a real person and is closer to the genre of historical fiction which includes inventing dialogue, creating characters, and plot points to tell a compelling narrative.

There are many people who objected to the inclusion of Black bounty hunters in the movie, specifically the character of Bigger Long. He is not an historical figure, but instead a character added to this story by the filmmakers. Their criticism is based on his violence and suggesting this characterization adds to negative stereotypes of Black men.

I haven’t seen much discussion about Walter, another Black male bounty hunter in the movie.

I saw the inclusion these characters as adding complexity to the narrative. This time period is not my area of expertise, so I will defer to historians who say there were Black bounty hunters. They may not have been common, but they existed. Including them in the story demonstrates that both Blacks and whites profited from the cruel institution of slavery while at the same time there were Blacks and whites who aided in the liberation of those in bondage. It would not have been easy to recognize who was trustworthy and making a wrong choice could be deadly.  Introducing the uncertainty about whether or not someone will betray you, adds tension.

At one point, Walter approached Harriet Tubman and offered his help. He had helped track her down when she ran away, but had a change of heart and wanted to work to redeem himself by assisting her.

I felt unsettled when he offered to help, because it felt like a trap. Except it wasn’t. Tension helps the audience feel engaged in stories and wondering what is going to happen next.

The Bigger Long character never had any such change of heart. He was a cruel and violent man who earned his living by the high stakes/high reward field of being a bounty hunter for runaway slaves rather than being paid low wages for menial jobs relegated for free Blacks.

Another fictional character introduced to forward the story is Marie Buchanon. She was a free born Black woman who ran the boarding house where Harriet Tubman lived in Philadelphia. Marie may not have been an historical character, but she demonstrates the differences between Blacks who were and weren’t enslaved. She gave instructions to Harriet as to how to hold herself with confidence when she went back south on missions to lead slaves to freedom. Marie also handed Harriet a gun.

That introduces the dramatic concept of Chekhov’s gun. Anton Chekhov was a famous playwright who famously held “One must not put a loaded gun on stage if no one is going to fire it.” He felt that this type of prop created a dramatic imperative. (For anyone wanting to know more about this literary convention, there is an excellent short film on Youtube.)

It is known that the historical figure of Harriet Tubman carried a gun. She reportedly used it to threaten any fugitives if they decided to turn back, telling them, "You'll be free or die."

In the movie, we see Harriet holding the pistol many times, but she resists firing it. There’s a scene after the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act where her former master, Gideon Brodess, and Bigger Long are in the boarding house in Philadelphia where she lived. Harriet is hiding, but she sees the two men beating Marie Buchanon in an effort to get information out of her. Harriet is holding her gun and almost fires at them, but doesn’t. Marie winds up being beaten to death by Bigger Long.

Had Harriet used the gun in that scene, it would have ended badly. The pistol only had one shot and there were two assailants. Had she killed one, the other would have likely overpowered her. She would then have been hauled back to Maryland facing an uncertain, but bad fate.

Besides, the filmmakers did not want to change history by making Harriet Tubman into a killer. Instead, we see the internal conflict she has with wanting to intervene to protect her friend, but knowing she cannot safely do so.

In the climax of the movie, Harriet Tubman went back to Maryland to rescue her remaining family members and lead them to safety/freedom in the North. During the time she was gathering her family to leave, there were scenes interspliced with the local slave owners who were rallying together after learning she was nearby. They carried guns and torches. Gideon’s mother, Eliza Brodess, urged them to, “Find this thief and burn her at the stake!” That signifies for the audience what awaited Harriet if she was captured.

Harriet Tubman was a high-profile member of the Underground Railroad and in the slave masters’ eyes had “stolen property” from them. She likely would have had a bounty on her head and if caught, would be subjected to torture to extract details of the Underground Railroad. They would want to dismantle the Underground Railroad by learning names of people involved, places they lived and worked, as well as the identities and locations of former slaves who now lived free in the North. And then, she would be subjected to a public execution that be both would be cruel and unusual in nature. All to send a message to those still in bondage that their hero “Moses” was gone and that they should lose all hope of ever being freed. Being burned at the stake like Joan of Arc would have been one possible outcome, and she would have just as likely been lynched like so many other Blacks were in this nation’s history. Tubman’s violent death would have been inevitable if she was caught, and most likely would have been without the benefit of trial.

Those were thoughts that likely were running through Gideon Brodess’ mind. He needed to bring Harriet Tubman back alive. He would claim the bounty before her torture and death. He would also gain fame for being the man to bring her down.

At one point, Harriet realizes that Bigger Long and Gideon are gaining on her threatening her family’s escape. She entrusts Walter to get on the small boat and take her family to safety while she distracted Gideon.

Harriet ran in the forest and scrambled up a large rock to avoid being caught by Bigger Long. They exchanged gunfire with her shot causing his hat to fly from his head.

He became enraged and said, “You goin’ die, bitch!”

Gideon was on horseback and behind Bigger. He heard the threat and rather than try to calm his hired Bounty hunter, he shot Bigger in the head, killing him. “Alive, I said.”

That action is what is being described as a “white savior” trope by critics. Matthew Hughey, Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Connecticut, and author of The White Savior Film: Content,Critics, and Consumption, (Temple University Press, 2014), defined the term as “a white messianic character saves a lower- or working-class, usually urban or isolated, nonwhite character from a sad fate.” One example is The Blind Side starring Sandra Bullock as Leigh Ann Tuohy who brought the homeless Black teenager Michael Oher into her family, then helped him on a path to become an NFL player. Another example is The Help where the movie about discrimination against Black domestic servants in the 1960s south is seen through the eyes of a white author played by Emma Stone.

Given this definition, do I think this scene fits the white savior trope? No, I don’t. Gideon is not a messianic character, nor did he want to save Harriet’s life. He wanted her captured alive because bringing her corpse back would be far less valuable. A corpse could not be tortured to reveal secrets and there would be far less spectacle to serve as a lesson for remaining slaves.

This white man wasn’t trying to be her savior. In fact, by killing Bigger, he wouldn’t have to share the bounty.

And no one would really care about the reason Gideon killed a Black man. White men could kill Black men with impunity. There would be no punishment for his act of murder.

However, had Harriet died at Bigger’s hands, she would have had a more merciful death than what would have been in store for her had she been captured by Gideon.

The death of the fictional character Bigger Long, also allowed a climactic scene between the movie’s protagonist, Harriet Tubman, and antagonist, Gideon Brodess.

This was the third and final scene where these two characters interacted. In dramatic structure parlance there was a beginning, middle and end to the drama between these two characters. The beginning was when Harriet was still a slave and was then known as Araminta “Minty” Ross. Minty’s husband, John Tubman a Black free man, handed papers from a lawyer to Edward Brodess that according to a will from Edward’s grandfather, Rit Ross (Minty’s mother) should have been freed years before as well as all of her children. John and Minty wanted to start a family and wanted their children to be born free. Edward tore up the papers, ordered John to stay away, and swore that Rit Ross, her children, and any descendants would forever be enslaved. Later Edward told his son, Gideon, that he should sell Minty since she was troublesome.

Later, Gideon overheard Minty praying for the death of his father. “Oh, Lord. If you ain’t going to change that man’s heart, kill him, Lord, and take him out of the way.”

Gideon confronted Minty. He brought up her fierce faith and remembered her praying by his bedside when he was a child and struck with a fever. She refused to back down from her wishes for the death of his father.

Edward died soon afterward.

Gideon became unnerved by this sudden death of his father and decided to sell Minty. That was the reason Minty decided to run away from the Brodess farm. She had sisters who had been sold “down south” and never to be heard from again. She did not want to be separated from her family in a similar manner.

The second scene between Harriet and Gideon, (and still technically in the beginning portion of the three part dramatic sequence), was during her escape attempt when slave catchers trapped her from both sides of a bridge. She started making moves to jump into the river. Gideon tried using soothing tones to coax her into surrendering. He said he had changed his mind about selling her and wouldn’t punish her too much for running away.

She responded by saying, “I’m gonna be free or die.” This was right before she jumped in the river.

The middle sequence is when she saw Gideon and Bigger attack Marie Buchanon. Harriet saw them, but was quiet so they didn’t know she was there. It marks the dramatic middle of this antagonistic relationship.

The third scene, and the dramatic ending, is where these two characters interacted after the murder of Bigger Long. Harriet Tubman is hiding behind a tree and frantically reloading her gun while Gideon Brodess rode on horseback and slowly made his way up the hillside to her. He was relaxed and confident, while she was summoning all of her strength and faith to survive the upcoming encounter.

Gideon was surprised by Harriet who emerged from behind a tree and aimed her gun at him.

His rifle wasn’t in the position to defend himself. She commanded that he throw it on the ground. After repeating herself, he relented and threw the rifle on the ground. She shot, but didn’t kill Gideon. She wounded his hand. The concept of Chekhov’s gun worked. The prop in the story was used, but history wasn’t changed to make her a killer.

Harriet also ordered Gideon to dismount his horse. She then took his horse and rode off,

abandoning him in the woods to find his way back to safety.

She confronted a man who had controlled every aspect of her life and of her family’s life. She demonstrated how strong a person she had become and that her faith in God was sacrosanct.

Her final farewell to Gideon was saying, “God don’t mean for people to own people.”

This sequence may never have happened in real life, but it allowed for the closure of a toxic relationship and is an emotionally satisfying scene for the audience. She was the victor by not only escaping again, but by showing that God was on her side.

And then, almost as an epilogue, there’s a scene where Harriet Tubman is shown later in life as a  commander of Union Troops in the Combahee River Raid in Beaufort, South Carolina. After delivering a stirring speech to the troops, she sings a song that is the signal to the slaves that the time has come to be rescued, hundreds begin running toward the ships. Then their white masters follow in hot pursuit. It is then we see Harriet shoulder a rifle and say the word, “Ready” as the soldiers get set to shoot their guns at the rebels.

At that point, Harriet’s gun likely killed someone. So the literary concept of Chekhov’s gun was fully used, even if we never saw someone die on screen from the lead character’s actions. And, it is hard to criticize soldiers for killing their enemies in a time of war.

Overall, I simply disagree with the accusation that the film makers for the movie Harriet used the “white savior” movie trope. Instead, I find their narrative to flesh out the life of an historic character to be utilizing the literary concept of “Chekhov’s gun.”

Here is the official trailer for the movie to demonstrate a few of the lines I quoted above.

 

  Please let me know if you have any feedback. I would like to start a productive discussion regarding this topic.

Expectations versus Predictions

Expectations versus Predictions

I started writing this post almost a week or so ago, thinking there's still time, there's still time. Ha! Now, there are only a few short hours left until the release of the last installment of the Harry Potter series. It seems that predictions and spoilers are everywhere.

I will not spoil anyone, for I haven't read the pages posted online or reviews that the New York Times or the Baltimore Sun have published. Honestly, I cannot buy any explanation which either newspaper can give to rationalize why they felt they should publish reviews prior to the release of this book.

They had to know the date of release.

They had to know that there have been a few clueless, braindead merchants who have opened their boxes prior to the date clearly stamped on the outside and sold copies before they were contractually allowed to sell them.

They didn't care. And I think they deserve lots of Howlers sent their way. I'll be dashing off my own. I find it highly ironic that while the newspaper industry is cutting back or eliminating book reviews that others willfully ignore the wishes of the publisher and the author by printing reviews before the books are available.

I don't care how they got a copy, it was wrong. Period.

Keith Olbermann interviewed the woman who wrote the review in the Baltimore Sun and if you'd like to know her justifications for this shameful act, you can find it here at the link Harry Potter and the Broken Secret.


Speaking of Keith Olbermann, if all goes well, John Granger should be a guest on his show tomorrow night. Tune in to MSNBC at 8 pm Eastern, 5 pm Pacific and wish him well.

Now, back to what I had planned on writing about which is namely my expectations versus my predictions in regards to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.

They are not the same.

My predictions are due to a combination of my expectations, plus my careful reading of canon and trying to divine what is coming next. However, I will be happy if none of my predictions are borne out, as long as my expectations are met.

Expectations

I want to see that all the meaningful loose ends are tied up in the series. There are so many questions that have thus far have not been answered, that I want to be adequately explained.

I want to know why it is so important that Lily’s eyes were green and Voldemort’s eyes are red.

I want to know why Lily did not have to die. I doubt that he was going soft, so I have to wonder what other purpose did Voldemort have in store for her? Why would he want to spare her life?

Will Norbert come back and save the day? I know my good friend Ama has been rooting for that scenario since the end of book 1. From the deluxe version's book cover it appears that it is a dragon, and I don't want it to be just any old dragon. I want it to be Baby Norbert all grown up.

Why exactly didn’t Harry die as a baby? Was it truly due to his mother’s sacrifice? If so, didn’t other mothers/fathers/lovers throw themselves in front of a loved one to save them, and why wouldn’t the Avada Kadavra curse backfire before? Many people have taken bullets for others, so why would that time have been so different from others?

I’m am of the belief that Harry’s scar is a Horcrux which was made accidentally and it goes to explain why he’s a Parselmouth and why Tom Riddle’s name sounded vaguely familiar in Chamber of Secrets. That’s because he’s got a sliver of Tom’s nasty soul in his body, and it would explain the psychic connection between Voldemort and Harry.

However, there are so many little things that I’d like revealed as well. Who exactly is the Gray Lady and what’s the story behind the Bloody Baron?

Is there anything special with Mrs. Norris and Filch’s relationship? How exactly do they communicate with one another? And how does Mrs. Figg communicate with her cats? Is Jo going to deliberately spell out that Crookshanks is a half-Kneazle? Or is this something that only obsessed fans who read online interviews and scour the accompanying school books written for charity will know, but that average readers of the series will never be explicitly told?

As for the big ending, what I really want is for it to be satisfying.

I want to close the book and think, “yes, that is the only way that it could have ended.”

I plan on having a box of tissues at my side just in case. I actually hope that I'll be blowing my nose throughout the last few chapters because I want her to move me emotionally.

I want this series to become classics that will last through the ages, and therefore I want an ending that is substantial. Rib sticking good, not a cotton-candy-rot-your-teeth end that you will forget quickly.

That does not mean that I expect or demand that it end happily. There are many stories that have become classics that do not have Happily Ever After ending.

I expect that Voldemort will die, but I truly do not care whether or not Harry lives or dies, as long as the ending works well.

I would rather that there is not a big happy wedding scene at the end. Many fans that I've interacted with in the fandom over the years have said for years that they want a Happy Ending. To them it means that it will necessarily include Harry marrying Ginny along with Ron marrying Hermione thus creating One Big Happy Weasley Family (OBHWF). A matrimoniathon if you will.

I’d rather that not be the ending, but I will accept it if JKR writes it satisfyingly. I don't want that as an ending because on the surface it sounds too cloyingly sweet for my tastes, similar to eating five servings of peanut brittle.

I prefer drama with multiple emotions being felt simultaneously. Sweet and sour. Honey and Vinegar. So if JKR goes the OBHWF route, I hope that there will have been some sadness in the Weasley family. Translation: One of the Weasleys will have had to die.

I don’t care which one. Molly. Arthur. Bill. Charlie. Fred or George.

It will give that melancholy tinge to the scene as long as there is a gap in the family photos showing where someone else should have been standing.

I didn’t mention Percy, because unless he reconciles with his family before his death, the gap wouldn’t have the same emotional meaning.

By the way, I do expect and/or hope that Percy will repent for turning against his family in OotP.

I expect that we shall go beyond the veil again, just like we did in Chamber of Secrets. Perdita Potter had a wonderful essay on this that used to be on the Symbolic Flight area on Portkey, but alas it appears to have been taken down.

Perdita suggested that the reason that the Trio could go beyond the veil and return is that they were invited by the dead. Possibly Harry can traverse beyond the veil again, if such another invitation is extended without it meaning that he has a necessarily subsequent death.

Things I would like to see happen in Deathly Hallows

● I want to see a full house-elf rebellion.

There has been too much foreshadowing of house-elves and their oppression by the wizards to just have it merely being a lame political crusade from Hermione in years four and five that she gave up in her sixth year when she decided she wanted to date Ron.

If there isn’t a full blown revolution by house-elves, I will be sorely disappointed in that plot point being built up but not fulfilled.

● I want to see Sirius again even if he is a ghost, and I want to know the entire significance of the magical mirror he gave Harry.

Jo has hinted in several interviews that we have not seen the last of that mirror.

I should hope we haven’t, because if it was merely there in OotP to serve as a plot device to yank on the readers’ heartstrings than I think she violated a rule by Anton Chekhov.

Chekhov was a famous playwright who held that if a prop were introduced, such as a rifle, it must have plot significance otherwise it should not be included.

“One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.”

Or

“If in Act I you have a pistol hanging on the wall, then it must fire in the last act.”

I want all of Chekhov’s rifles to be fired in Deathly Hallows. All of them.

I don’t want her to have forgotten any of them.

In her infamous interview with The Leaky Cauldron and Mugglenet she was asked what color Ron’s eyes were. She couldn’t believe that she hadn’t snuck in anywhere in the thousands of pages that his eyes were blue.

For those who are keeping track, Jo is trying to show full compliments within the Trio.

Harry’s eyes = green

Hermione’s eyes = brown

Ron’s eyes = blue

Harry = Half-blood

Hermione = Muggleborn

Ron = Pure blood

Harry’s wandcore = phoenix tail feather

Hermione’s wandcore (revealed only on JKR’s website) = dragon heart string

Ron’s wandcore = unicorn tail hair

And yes, I want Hermione’s wand core to be revealed in the canon and not just on her website.

I wouldn't mind if Hagrid dies. In fact, I expect it. I knew lots of my fandom friends were expecting him to be D-E-A-D in book 5. Instead, it was my favorite adult character who had a suffered an early demise.

As John Granger details in his discussions about alchemy - the stages are the nigredo, albedo, then the rubedo.

Black, White, and then Red.

It's Rubeus Hagrid's time to be killed. Although he might be the one whom she said she spared.

Predictions

For those who are still with me in this essay and wondering where I think it will end...know that I have mentioned variations on this theory for several years on various fandom sites.

It is not based on any reading of embargoed material.

If you wish to read further, scroll down - or just leave me a reply now and leave yourself untainted.

W

A

R

N

I

N

G

A

L.

O.

O.

N.

'

S.

predictions....

I think Harry will die.

He will realize at the end of his quest that the last remaining Horcrux that must be destroyed is the scar on his forehead. If Voldemort’s evil is to be vanquished, he must be willing to sacrifice himself for the good of the Wizarding world as well as the Muggle world.

Harry must sacrifice himself.

Just as Ron was willing to do at the end of Book 1.

I think that Harry will die at the same time that Voldemort dies. Similar to King Arthur/Mordred dying in each others arms.

And Harry will be decapitated.

It’s a grisly way to go, but pretty definitive and it has been foreshadowed.

Repeatedly.

The line in canon that made me think this was his ultimate end was midway through the series in Goblet of Fire.

GoF Scholastic pb edition p. 223

Harry laid down his quill too, having just finished predicting his own death by decapitation.

Here’s a partial list of decapitation in the series. I say partial, because I am sure that I will have missed at least one instance because there are so many.

All are from Scholastic books and paperback versions.

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone

p. 124 Nearly Headless Nick

p. 130 the first password was “Caput Draconis” Latin for dragon’s head.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

p. 123 The Headless Hunt

p. 135-7 description of head hockey and headless horsemen

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban

p. 125 Harry accidentally beheaded a dead caterpillar

p. 134 Lupin mentions “a headless corpse”

p. 137 A Boggart in the shape of a mummy fell down and “its head rolled off.”

p. 291 Buckbeak was to be executed by decapitation

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire

p. 386 Harry and Ron were playing with trick wands and Ron’s tin parrot beheaded Harry’s rubber haddock

p. 411 Ron used a Severing Charm to remove the moldy ruffs and cuffs from his dress robes

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

p. 61 The row of house-elf heads hung on the wall with care.

p. 113 mention of Aunt Elladora who started the tradition of mounting house-elf heads on the walls.

P. 335 The sign of the Hog’s Head tavern of a severed head replete with dripping blood.

p. ?? Twins with their headless hats. I can’t remember exactly where this appears in canon, but I trust people remember this example of the twin’s magical creations.

p. 818 an unauthorized Portkey being made of the severed head from the fountain of Magical Brethren

Interestingly enough I didn't notice any instances of decapitation in Half-Blood Prince. Perhaps, JKR has decided to soften Harry's death after hearing of so many beheadings of people in Iraq during this war/occupation.

I don't know, but if she sticks with her plan as it was laid out years ago, I'm betting on Harry losing his head.

Now, that was my prediction before Order of the Phoenix (OotP). I thought Harry would just die a noble death. After reading OotP, I started thinking that maybe he'd live afterall. Similar to The Princess Bride where Wesley isn't fully dead, just mostly dead.

Perhaps we will discover the full power behind that permanently locked door in the Department of Mysteries that Dumbledore described containing the "force that is at once more wonderful and more terrible than death, than human intelligence, than forces of nature. It is also, perhaps, the most mysterious of the many subjects for study that reside there. " p. 843 in The Lost Prophecy chapter.

I think that somehow Harry will be Resurrected to Life.

Jo had been quoted in the Vancouver Sun back in 2000in regards to questions about her being a Christian saying:

``Yes, I am,'' she says. ``Which seems to offend the religious right far worse than if I said I thought there was no God. Every time I've been asked if I believe in God, I've said yes, because I do, but no one ever really has gone any more deeply into it than that, and I have to say that does suit me, because if I talk too freely about that I think the intelligent reader, whether 10 or 60, will be able to guess what's coming in the books.''

I've looked at that for years and thought that Harry would have to be willing to sacrifice himself.

I still think that will happen. We shall see. There's not much more time before all will be revealed.

Go ahead, and let me know what you predict will happen. Who you think will die, but please don't post any spoilers. Only your educated guesses.

Thanks,

Linda