How Sweet the Sound: Commentary of the film Amazing Grace

Amazing Grace portrays the abolition of the slave trade in Great Britain in the early 19th century. The film is primarily concerned with the life of British politician William Wilberforce and John Newton and their role in the crusade to abolish the slave trade. It has been particularly praised for its historical accuracy and its family-friendly Christian content. While Amazing Grace is a refreshing alternative to much of the filth that Hollywood frequently produces it leaves much to be desired in several respects. The movie is plagued with several inaccuracies that range from the mild to the more severe. Ultimately Grace fails to present a compelling narrative as a result of its unrealistic history and dialogue.

Before ripping into the film I should say a few words in its favor. I generally enjoy period films and this one was no exception. Even if the films subject matter was somewhat troublesome I still enjoy viewing a historical period that was for the most part more pleasant than our current situation. The film is also a healthy alternative to Hollywood as usual because the movie presents its dialogue without swearing (unless you count "nigger") or lewd and offensive scenes. The film has some references to Christianity and seems to present the Christian faith of Wilberforce and Newton in a positive light.

However despite the films bright spots I ultimately found it unconvincing. I tend to be a stickler for accuracy in films such as this one especially when the film has a moral message attached to it. There are some minor historical inconsistencies including that Parliament appears as a single chamber with no distinctions between Lords and Commons. Another is the prominence of the hymn Amazing Grace in the film. The film period spans from the 1790s to the abolition of the slave trade in 1807. During this time the hymn Amazing Grace is sung often as we would recognize it today. The problem with this is that the hymn as we know it didn't take its present form until being adapted to an American tune in the 1830s. The frequent singing of the hymn well before this time in our modern tune is inaccurate. These errors are tolerable and don't overly discredit the films message, but the more major errors are the films undoing.

The most troublesome aspect of the film is the way that John Newton is portrayed. He appears as an dodering old fool whose conscience won't let him have any peace about his role in the slave trade. A memorable line of his is that "they (black slaves) were human, we (whites) were apes." Obviously this falls into what so many other Hollywood typically portray; collective white guilt over history's problems. It's one thing to mention that the slave trade was problematic both morally and practically, but quite another to suggest that whites played the role of the "ape." There is no doubt that Newton was personally troubled by his role in the slave trade and was a passionate proponent of abolition as is evidenced from his book, Thoughts Upon the African Slave Trade. However it is also worth noting that Newton converted to Christianity and repented of his wayward behavior but continued to be involved with the slave trade for some time after his conversion. It was only much later that he quits in order to become a minister and campaign against the traffic that he had been involved in. There is also no evidence that Newton was driven mad by his role in the slave trade although he was personally troubled by the role that he played.

Another problem with the movie is the prominence that it gives to Olaudah Equiano (aka Gustavus Vassa). In the film Equiano is shown to be a major figure in abolition in a way that he was not historically. After viewing the film, one would come to believe that the movement would have failed without Equiano's valuable contribution. The reality is that Equiano was best known as the author of The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, or Gustavus Vassa, the African. Interestingly enough it appears that Equiano may have lied about his place of origin in this book thus rendering his account of the "middle passage" and his claim to have been an African prince entirely void.

Then there are the important historical omissions. The film doesn't mention this but the reality is that slavery was largely unknown to most English at the time because slavery had been abolished in England back in 1772. Far from the liberal affair that abolition became in America, abolition in England was peaceful and resulted in the repatriation of most free blacks back to Africa. The cause of abolition in England that Wilberforce took up was often associated with keeping Britain white and preventing her reliance on alien labor. The film also portrays Wilberforce as uniquely Christian among a mostly lethargic or apathetic English Parliament. This was not the case as Christianity was much stronger during this period in Britain and the West in general than it is now. How sad to see Christians accept such historical revision and omission.

For these reasons Amazing Grace fails as a historical narrative. I'm not surprised at this seeing that director Michael Apted is an Anglican turned agnostic. Thus Amazing Grace conforms to a certain Hollywood outlook while appearing to break Hollywood norms. Sadly, many Christians will remember it as a Christian film that mentioned God and in which good (political correctness and equality) triumphed over evil (white racism).