Harriet: A Historical Drama

The movie Harriet, directed by Kasi Lemmons and written by Gregory Allen Howard, was released in November of 2019. It stars Cynthia Erivo as Harriet who received two Oscar nominations for Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role and Best Original Song.  This 2 hour and 5-minute movie had us all on the edge of our seats as we watched and waited as Harriet saught her freedom and eventually brought others to freedom as well. This movie does highlight her journey to freedom and involvement in the Underground Railroad, but it should be known she made substantial efforts to help the Women’s Suffrage Movement and aided Civil War efforts as well.

Synopsis of Plot

Harriet is a historical drama film that takes place around the 1840s and closely examines the life of Harriet Tubman, who is most famously known for freeing slaves while working as a “conductor” for the Underground Railroad. The film begins in Maryland in the 1840s and when Harriet, who at the time was named Araminta “Minty” Ross, was married to a recent freedman, John Tubman. The movie begins with Minty and John confronting their slave master, Edward Brodess about how they hired a lawyer to review an old will that stated that Minty’s mother, Rit, was supposed to be freed by the age of 45. Mr. Brodess chose to ignore his grandfather’s wishes to free Rit and tore up the will that Minty had shown him. Shortly after this incident, Mr. Brodess dies and his son, Gideon, puts Minty up for sale. This prompted Minty to run away and attempt to seek freedom in the North, specifically Pennsylvania. Once Minty successfully escapes and reaches Pennsylvania, which was a 100-mile journey, she finds William Still and Marie Buchanon, who provide her shelter in Pennsylvania. Mr. Still later asks Minty a series of questions regarding Minty’s life as a slave and asks her if she wants to make a new name for herself. This is where Minty changes her name officially to Harriet Tubman. Once she becomes somewhat acclimated into her life in Pennsylvania, she returns to her old plantation and helps bring other slaves in the Brodess household to freedom. Due to her success in freeing 9 slaves on the plantation, she is then recruited by Mr. Still to work as a conductor for the Underground Railroad. After her recruitment, the film continues to show Harriet’s success in freeing slaves in the South and later briefly shows her involvement in both the Civil War and women’s suffrage. 

Harriet is considered to be a historical drama film, due to the film being mostly historically accurate, but like most historical films, it sacrifices some of its historicity for dramatic effect and entertainment purposes. The narrative style of Harriet is set in the first person, from the perspective of Harriet Tubman throughout the movie’s entirety. This narrative style allows the audience to truly gain insight into the effect that enslavement had on an individual, especially in terms of their mental and physical health. This narrative style also gives the audience more perspective in terms of how the Underground Railroads worked and how Harriet became involved in freeing slaves throughout her lifetime. There was no outside narrator in the film, but in some instances, there was some subtitle text that stated the time and place a certain event happened in the movie, such as the subtitle text toward the end of the film where Harriet’s accomplishments outside of her involvement in the Underground Railroads is summarized.

 

Critical Appraisal of Harriet

The film Harriet engages in history about the Underground Railroad and slavery during the 1800s. It follows the journey of Harriet Tubman, one of the most important figures in the American abolishment movement who escapes slavery and helps numerous others reach freedom. Despite minor divergences from actual history, the film does a fairly accurate job at depicting the events of Harriet’s life and her involvement in the Underground Railroad.

The film dives immediately into her journey towards Philadelphia, one which takes her 100 miles. The film states this accurately and depicts true events from her journey, such as the scene where she stretches her hands out towards the sun as she crosses the Pennsylvania border. After she reaches freedom, the movie accurately depicts how Harriet went back to Maryland for her loved ones and found her husband remarried. It also does a good job showing the complexity of documenting the history of slavery through William Still and his effort to record former slaves’ experiences and family lineage. The scene of him writing down “possible brain damage” instead of directly transcribing Tubman’s words reveals how much record keepers have the power to shape history. Other historically accurate aspects of the film include Harriet’s use of pistols, her godly visions, and the overall depiction of slavery in the 1800s.  According to one of the class lectures, there was a hardening of the slave system after the revolution and people believed slave owner’s rights to property trumped the rights of enslaved people. Militias in the south policed slavery rather than engaging in outside threats, and we see this in the film based on the slave owners’ dedication to capture Harriet.

Although much of Harriet is historically accurate, there exists a handful of instances where it strays from facts. The film invented three main characters that never existed in real life: Gideon Brodess, Marie Buchanan, and Bigger Long. It also shows members of the Underground Railroad having lavish social gatherings in secret headquarters under Philadelphia streets, events that doubtfully happened. These small divergences from historical records help dramatize the film and enhance the narrative. However, with the film diving into Harriet’s journey so quickly, the audience lacks context to understand the cues and symbols of the Underground Railroad. Besides the assumption that the audience knows the importance of work songs and familiarity with nature as a runaway slave, the artistic choices the director makes in Harriet do not undermine its value.

 

Suggestions for Relevant Reading

 

Kathleen Lawrence, Harriet, Journal of American History, Volume 107, Issue 1, June 2020, Pages 278–280

• Link: Harriet | Journal of American History | Oxford Academic 
• Link: Ohio State Library link (if above link doesn’t work) https://journals-ohiolink-edu.proxy.lib.ohio-state.edu/apexprod/rws_ejcsearch/r/1507/99?p99_entity_id=289522955&p99_entity_type=MAIN_FILE&cs=3a4xFtYyvyh1nhKkuA7eiZKJG3jn6Y_Mr0qLA0r-IrLTBThQ897EO773qSHd4B0EIaUfHXeKZbzPiMaR36N9xOw 

This primary source in the American History Journal is a Movie Review on Harriet, in which the author addresses some historical inaccuracies and includes a brief comparative analysis of the film to other African American biographical-drama films like Steve McQueens’s 12 years a Slave. This graphically violent film, unlike Harriet, had shown the violent parts of slavery such as whippings, rape, and mutilation. Although viewers are shielded from those images in Harriet, we still see the scars on Harriet’s back when she undresses to bathe in Marie’s boarding house, and we see similar scars on the backs of other slaves as well.

Aside from these sorts of comparisons, the movie review also reveals some historical inaccuracies that would most likely not have been known to the general audience. This includes the invention of characters like Gideon Brodess, who was the son of Eliza, and Edward Bodress, who had existed as their son named Jonathan, but there is not much more known about him. The filmmakers had also created the character of Harriet’s friend Marie Buchanon, who was the free woman that lived in Philadelphia who owned the boardinghouse that supported newly freed slaves as they integrated into their new lives. Lastly, the mean and ruthless character of Bigger Long, who aided Gideon as an African American slave catcher was also invented. The article speculates that African American slave catchers like Bigger Long did exist, however realistically speaking it was very dangerous to be a free black slave in the south at that time as there was a constant fear that you can lose your freedom at any moment and be sold back onto slavery. Another inaccuracy pointed out in this primary source was the impact of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. In the film, we see Harriet is living in Philadelphia when she learns about the newly passed law that permitted the capture of runaway slaves to be returned to the South and it called up for bystanders to assist in the capture of runaways. However, in the movie, they’d ‘dramatized the suddenness of the law passage when Harriet is living free in Philadelphia’. In the movie we see the impact the law unfolds at a time when Harriet had already returned to save several dozen slaves including her brothers when in actuality the effect of the new Slave Act would have been in effect shortly after Harriet arrived in Philadelphia in 1849. This means the Slave Act would have been in effect when Harriet returned to Maryland the first time for her husband, which would have made her trip exponentially riskier. Nevertheless, the article did a great job providing a comprehensive review of the film and providing great insight on some details of inaccuracies that most of us would have overlooked otherwise.

 

Sarah Hopkins Bradford, Harriet, the Moses of Her People (1886)

• Link: The Project Gutenberg eBook of Harriet, by Sarah H. Bradford. 
• Link: Additional reference mentioned for the example  Summary of Harriet, the Moses of Her People

A useful source on the film’s historicity would be Sarah Hopkins Bradford’s ‘Harriet, the Moses of Her People. As we had seen in the film, Harriet was illiterate and therefore could not have produced any of her own literature on her life story, so it was decided that Sarah Bradford would be a great fit. The first edition of the book, Scenes in the life of Harriet Tubman was compiled in 1869, however in 1886 Tubman requested Bradford to write a second edition; Harriet, the Moses of Her People. Tubman had high hopes that the funds from the second edition to her biography can fund a hospital for elderly and disabled colored people (pg.78).

Director Kasi Lemmons and screenwriter Gregory Allen Howard have shared how this edition of the book was used as a reliable source of information when creating the film Harriet, and by reading this book we can compare how they transformed the words to the screen. Aside from that, we recognize just how insightful the book is to Harriet’s life, for it is written by a person that was a trusted writer and friend. However, some criticism still exists on Bradford’s writing about Harriet’s life, as she chooses to adopt a more poetic approach when writing the bibliography. Writer Zach Hutchins provides an example of this poetic narrative that Bradford adopted in his summary of the book:

“For example, Bradford begins Harriet by asking readers to imagine “a hot summer’s day, perhaps sixty years ago,” when “a group of merry little darkies were rolling and tumbling in the sand in front of the large house of a Southern planter,” while Tubman, “darker than any of the others, and with a more decided wooliness in the hair” sits “[a]part from the rest of the children, on the top rail of a fence, holding tight on to the tall gate post” (p. 13)

It is understood that Bradford had written the bibliography in this manner to provide a much clearer and more chronological narrative of Harriet’s life, which was not fully captured in the first edition (Scenes in the Life of Harriet Tubman).  By reading this book you can grasp a much better picture of a large part of Harriet’s life as it provides a great historical background to the astounding women, and it introduced a much heavier emphasis on Harriet’s religiosity. We capture in the movie how important Harriet’s faith is, and how she relied on God to help her escape Slavery and then aiding her in guiding dozens of other slaves to freedom. However, in the book, we read her prayers and praises, which depicted the strength of her faith and how it led her in life. “God had a great work for her to do in the world, and the discipline and hardship through which she passed in her early years, were only preparing her for her afterlife of adventure and trial;” (Bradford, 16)

Nevertheless, we should recognize this biography as a unique account of an author who had interacted with Tubman and was personally entrusted by her to write this biography. I believe the book had also done a nice job capturing the role Harriet, and others in the Underground Railroad organization had as African Americans adopted an active role in the anti-slavery and abolitionist movement.

 

Harriet Tubman — A legacy of Resistance

• Link: Harriet Tubman: A Legacy of Resistance

An especially great resource I had found while researching was an article written by Janell Hobson in the Duke University Press, Harriet Tubman: A Legacy of Resistance. The main focus of this article was addressing how “Harriet’s contribution to gender liberation is often unnoticed and unrecognized”. We recognize her for her bravery and dedication, and we are also quite familiar with Tubeman’s journey as she joined the Underground Railroad and even participated in the armed resistance against the forces of Slavery, which was all depicted in the film. However, Harriet’s role and involvement in the feminist movement are often overlooked. For example, it is not widely known that she had attended the founding conventions of the National Association of Colored Women (NACW) in 1896, in which she spoke of her own life during the Civil war and the work she had done. She had also participated in the conversation at the convention that spoke on the existing past and present forces of black women resistance during that era. This was especially important at that time as the NACW sought to unify black women organizations around the country as an effort to solidify in power against the Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court ruling earlier in May of that year (pg 3). An especially critical aspect of the article I would suggest reading is the problematic nature in which contemporary audiences have a difficult time grasping “Tubman’s story beyond historical inaccuracies, gaps, and silences in her life history, and stock stereotypes of enslaved black women” (pg 2) A 2013 symposium organized by the Department of Women’s, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at the University at Albany further encouraged conversations to be held and conducted a local tour in which they visited several safe-houses, and sites of where Tubman made daring escapes in as she worked diligently towards creating networks in the anti-slavery movement.

The article continues to argue that Harriet Tubman has been placed in a sort of paradox in which she remains recognized for her life as an African American woman who escaped slavery on her own and then chose to continuously risk her life to return and save those that remained. She’s also commemorated for her work in the Civil War as she worked for the Union army as a nurse and even a spy. The paradox is created whenever she is overlooked or ignored for her extensive work in the women’s suffrage movement. Aside from attending the NACW convention, Tubman attended a women’s suffrage meeting like the one held in Rochester, New York in November 1896. Here she spoke about her role as a conductor on the Underground railroad and she shared proudly, “I never ran my train off the track and I never lost a passenger”. She led with this story to argue how her dangerous role as a conductor led her to “transgress raced and gendered limitations”. She continues to say that she had done all of the travelings between the North and South along with the journey to Canada without the help of a man, which should surely support the deserved right for women to vote and gain full citizenship (pg 4). However, in contemporary women’s studies, there remains a gaping hole noting Tubman and how she advocated for women’s rights, especially of African American women. Conclusively to this article, I believe that the author had addressed appropriately the lack of intersectional analysis in feminist scholars, and how Tubman’s absence “reflects the intersectionality of multiple oppressions” (pg 5) and how it should be vital to address issues of race, class, and gender simultaneously.

 

Team Work Duties:

Synopsis of Plot  – Written by McKenna Cartt

Critical Appraisal of Harriet – Written by Julie Campean

Suggestions for Relevant Reading – Written by Lisa Kassa

Final Editor and Post Creator – Caleb Richardson

 

Citations for Critical Appraisal of Harriet:

• Bell, Richard. “Harriet.” New York History, vol. 101 no. 1, 2020, p. 172-173. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/nyh.2020.0021.
• Bouknight, Ashley. Review of Harriet dir. by Kasi Lemmons. The Public Historian, vol. 42 no. 3, 2020, p. 149-151. Project MUSE muse.jhu.edu/article/766486.
• Marszalek, John F. “Harriet Tubman.” Salem Press Biographical Encyclopedia, 2019. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ers&AN=88807115&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Citation for 1st Relevant Reading: 

• Lawrence, Kathleen. “Harriet.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 June 2020, doi.org/10.1093/jahist/jaaa167

Citations for 2nd Relevant Reading: 

• Summary of Harriet, the Moses of Her People, docsouth.unc.edu/neh/harriet/summary.html.
• “HARRIET.” The Project Gutenberg EBook of Harriet, by Sarah H. Bradford., www.gutenberg.org/files/9999/9999-h/9999-h.htm.

Citation for 3rd Relevant Reading:

• Hobson, Janell. “Harriet Tubman: A Legacy of Resistance.” Meridians: Feminism, Race, Transnationalism, Duke University Press, 7 Nov. 2014, muse.jhu.edu/article/558781.