Analysis Of The Book Mutiny On The Amistad

History can be learned through several different mediums, and it is arguable that the most popular methods are through film and literature. Each come with their own respective advantages and disadvantages, and can each have a different effect on how an event is both portrayed and conceptualized. When comparing the 1987 book Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and its Impact on American Abolition, Law and Diplomacy by Howard Jones, and the 1997 film Amistad directed by Steven Spielberg, it is apparent that both the book and the film are able to effectively retell the story of the events that took place aboard the Amistad in 1839. Yet each shed a different light on the matter and have been received by people in a different way.

For example, the majority of the film was concerned with the key question of “Where did they come from?” In Jones’ book, we learn very early on that the people in question had in fact came from Africa, therefore nullifying any claims made towards them that they could be considered property. In the movie, we are kept in suspense of learning this truth all for the effect of building tension, to have this realization be the pivotal moment where it was clear who should win the case. With such heavy focus on this one element, the film neglected to expand on details of other factors playing a part in the court’s decision, such as the looming threat of civil war, international relations with Spain, and the push from President Van Buren who desired an outcome that would increase his odds of re-election. The film is also guilty in misrepresenting the way the case was handled in the Supreme Court. It is implied through the film that the words of John Quincy Adams alone swayed the judges into voting favorably against slavery, however as we learn in the book the case was really centered on the Atlantic Slave Trade instead of the issue of slavery within America. Spielberg’s inclusion of the fictional character Theodore Joadson also takes away from historical accuracy and diminishes the contributions of the abolitionist Lewis Tappan. Therefore it can be said that the advantage of reading the book over watching the film is that the book is less focused on tension building and more focused on providing details on the legal battle and the ramifications of the decision