(1956)
Friendly Persuasion
(1956)
The story of a family of Quakers in Indiana in 1862. Their religious sect is strongly opposed to violence and war. It's not easy for them to meet the rules of their religion in everyday life but when Southern troops pass the area they are in real trouble. Should they fight, despite their peaceful attitude?
Written without credit by black-listed writer Michael Wilson. Academy Award Nominations: 6, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best (Adaped) Screenplay.
In the early days of the cold war thaw, President Reagan presented a video of the file to Soviet Mikhail Gorbachev.
- One Quaker's Critique -
That film teaches more about our Quaker Peace Testimony in a 'real life setting' than any film or book I know. Though set in the Civil War era, it spoke to conditions today for the many who live in war zones as well as those of us whose war zones are our own lives.
Since this movie has been mentioned twice I would like to note that I, for one, agree with the criticism that was made of this movie as demonstrating Quaker ideals of peace. (It still might be a good movie from some people's points of view, or a good movie for children, depending on one's ideas about these things.) I disliked the way Quaker ideals were portrayed in the movie from the first time I saw it; I thought it was a travesty. Later I was very pleased to see an excellent (IMO) discussion of this in, I think, Friends Journal. Later Chuck Fager, whose ideas and writings I respect a lot, wrote (probably in his newsletter) that he sort of agreed but found the arguments less than compelling. But to me they ARE compelling. It is a long time since I thought about this, but as I remember, EVERY character is shown reneging on his ideals of pacifism; now I am willing to accept the idea that it is certainly realistic that in any particular chosen time period or in a particular family or small section of society that this might indeed happen and probably has; but this is NOT shown in a way to say how difficult the keeping of pacifist view is; it is shown, in the case of the mother, as somewhat comic--(a sexist view also; the mother is taken less seriously than the men); every time a POTENTIALLY serious conflict arises, it is deflected in one way or another. The really crucial scene, in which the father has the chance to shoot the young man who is on the other side of the war and has been caught nearby, and doesn't--which is treated as the crucial scene, with slow pauses, long shots of agonized faces and decision-making, etc.--is completely vitiated by the fact that the young man IS UNARMED and the QUAKER HAS THE GUN. True, it is nice he chooses not to use it, but there have been many examples (at least I believe there has) in which an person NOT religiously devoted to pacifism has refused to shoot his enemy, some even in situations in which that person is in real danger, as the Quaker in the movie is not. If this is all that pacifism means, well, that is still better than non-pacifism, but it trivializes the more serious philosophical questions, and makes Quakers look especially marginal, though charming.
Added 8th Month 29, 1998
Return to our
Page