A photograph from the 1913 Woman's Suffrage Parade
Analysis of the first one-third of Iron Jawed Angels
Scene 1: The beginning of Iron Jawed Angels is set in Philadelphia in 1912 - when two young, ambitious suffragist activists named Alice Paul and Lucy Burns have a meeting with Carrie Chapman Catt and Anna Howard Shaw, who are members of the National American Woman Suffrage Association.
Scene begins at 2:30
TRUTH: Historically, the date of 1912 doesn't seem to be inaccurate - this would be near the time of the meeting of Paul and Burns. According to the Library of Congress, "The origins of the National Woman's Party date from 1912, when Alice Paul and Lucy Burns, young Americans schooled in the militant tactics of the British suffrage movement, were appointed to the National American Woman Suffrage Association’s Congressional Committee. They injected a renewed militancy into the American campaign and shifted attention away from state voting rights toward a federal suffrage amendment. (loc.gov)"
TRUTHINESS: There could be arguments regarding the portrayal of Paul and Burns' personalities in Iron Jawed Angels (as the film makers were not present in 1912, and thus didn't have first-hand information on the two when making the movie.) So the truthiness in this scene would be Paul and Burns' individual personalities -- Burns is portrayed as being very energetic and argumentative at times, Paul is shown as more logical and thoughtful, but just as passionate, if not more so about the issue of women's suffrage. There are, however, credible sources indicating that the film makers weren't too far off. At the very least, they did their research. Below lists one such credible source.
REFERENCES: The Library of Congress website has listed personality profiles for some of the major influences on the issue of women's suffrage.
"Lucy Burns was a versatile and pivotal figure within the National Woman’s Party. With distinctive flame-red hair that matched her personality and convictions, she was often characterized as a charmer and a firebrand–and the crucial support behind her friend Alice Paul’s higher-profile leadership. (loc.gov)"
Additional Information: Here, you can read about Paul, Burns and others on the Library of Congress website.
Scene 2: Paul and Burns are determined to pass a constitutional amendment enabling women to vote, and all of the women do agree that women deserve and need to obtain the right to vote. But the members of NAWSA believe that Burns and Paul are "getting ahead of themselves" and trying too hard to make something impossible happen. The members of NAWSA think that a slower approach is the best route to take when trying to pass an amendment to the United States Constitution.
Scene begins at 5:00
TRUTH: This scene's portrayal is very accurate, regarding Paul and Burns' interaction with the older and more conservative members of the NAWSA.
TRUTHINESS: There is not a lot of false information presented here. The only thing that could possibly be seen as not historically accurate would be the actual conversation had between Burns, Paul and the NAWSA. Similar to the first scene, the film makers don't have first-hand accounts of the conversation, so it's difficult to say if the scene is "true to life". What we do know is that the outcome following is very historically accurate. So for a film, this slight detail flaw is not vitally important. I believe there is no framing here - the film makers seemed to take every measure to make sure that the situation in this scene showed no bias.
Scene 3: Paul and Burns are responsible for the Washington D.C. branch of NAWSA, and they begin raising their own money and awareness - mostly by passing out flyers and asking for support on the street.
Scene begins at 8:46
TRUTH: According to the Library of Congress website, "Traditional lobbying and petitioning were a mainstay of NWP members, but these activities were supplemented by other more public actions – including parades, pageants, street speaking, and demonstrations. (loc.gov)"
Paul and Burns get the support of the women they recruit as they begin to plan for their first major publicity event- a parade in Washington, D.C.
TRUTHINESS: There is no truthiness here- the makers of Iron Jawed Angels were very historically accurate in their dipiction of woman suffragists recruiting methods.
Additional Information: Go the Library of Congress website here, where the tatics of women suffragists are discussed.
MORE Additional Information: An 1881 news story from the Boston Post titled "A Woman on women's suffrage" can be found here, found on the NY Times website.
Scene 4: When the group makes an appearance at an art gallery, Paul meets a Washington Post illustrator named Ben Weissman, and they spend a fair amount of time taking at the event. Weissman is interested in Paul, seemingly because of her drive and passionate nature - especially when it comes to women's rights. Eventually Weissman convinces Paul to go to dinner with him, somewhat in exchange for his help in bringing women's suffrage to the public's attention through his position at the Washington Post.
Scene begins at 8:00
TRUTH: As far as accuracy goes, Paul and Burns did attend events such as this one - with the intention to raise money and followers to add to their campaign. Historically, there is a lot of inaccuracies where the Weissman's character is concerned though. Although this character and his fledgling romance with Paul is convincing, in reality Weissman did not exist.
TRUTHINESS: What is inaccurate about this scene is that Paul never met Weissman at the art gallery. This character was constructed by the filmmakers, most likely to provide the story added depth via a "love interest". In the film, when Paul eventually goes to dinner with Weissman, she is somewhat surprised when there is a young boy sitting at the dinner table with Weissman - his son. She can see that Weissman cares deeply for his son, and Paul is still interested in Weissman. Ultimately though, Paul decides that she has to dedicate all of her time and energy to the woman's suffrage movement, and Weissman fades out of the picture.
Scene 5: Paul and Burns' parade ends in chaos, with bottles and trash thrown at the women peacefully walking, and onlookers hassling and taunting the women.
Film clip of the parade organized by Paul, Burns and the NAWSA
TRUTH: Most of this scene is very accurate, from what my research showed. There actually was a lady on a horse, and the crowd did react fairly poorly to the women and their signs. Overall they were not well-received, but they did get the media recognition that the film portrayed.
TRUTHINESS: Obviously the filmmakers were not present at the time of the parade, so most of the dialog in the film during the parade is fabricated. Although I think that the overall feeling and crowd reaction was probably accurately portrayed, I am sure that the filmmakers wanted this scene to be emotionally-charged. Because of this, there are probably aspects of truthiness here.
Scene 6: The next day, Paul is elated over the fact that the parade got front-page coverage, and even though Paul herself is still scratched and bruised from the parade, she excitedly shared the news with a displeased Catt. Catt continued to think that Paul and Burns' approach was not organized enough, and much too rushed.
Scene begins at 6:10
"The willingness of NWP pickets to be arrested, their campaign for recognition as political prisoners rather than as criminals, and their acts of civil disobedience in jail shocked the nation and brought attention and support to their cause. Through constant agitation, the NWP effectively compelled President Wilson to support a federal woman suffrage amendment. Similar pressure on national and state legislators led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920. (loc.gov)"
TRUTHINESS: I don't believe that there is a lot of truthiness displayed in this scene, aside from the dialog that was used- as there is no way to know exactly what was said during private conversations.
Mackenzie's Conclusion
As for the issue of women's suffrage movement of 1917, Iron Jawed Angels presented information that was largely very true. After watching this film, I feel like I learned a lot concerning the topic of women's suffrage. I had read and researched the issue in the past, but sometimes watching a film such as this one helps to make things seem more "real" or understandable. While researching about the first one-third of the movie, I had found that most of the information presented by Iron Jawed Angels was fairly accurate. Aside from the fabrication of Paul's love interest, most of the information in the film (on my part at least) was historically true.
I knew some basic information on the issue of women's suffrage before viewing the film, but sometimes watching a film such as this one helps to make things seem more "real" or understandable. While researching about the first one-third of the movie, I had found that most of the information presented by Iron Jawed Angels was fairly accurate. Aside from the fabrication of Paul's love interest, most of the information in the film (on my part at least) was historically true.
-----
Rejection of the AmendmentIn the clip above, the first time congress voted on the amendment to allow women to vote, it was rejected. To see if this was true, I researched and found from the New York Times that this was in fact true. The Learning Network in the Education section of the New York Times wrote an article about this fact on the 97th anniversary of that date. The article said, "On Jan. 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives voted, 204-174, to reject a constitutional amendment to give women the right to vote." This fact of the movie was historically correct and framed with accuracy in accordance to the facts I have found.
Additional historical background: According to the New York Times, in 1914 the women's voting rights issue was brought to congress for the first time in 46 years and was rejected. The second time was January of 1915 making it the second time the amendment had been rejected in less than a year.
Click here to view the article in the New York Times.
-----
The Split from NAWSA
In the clip, the head of NAWSA (National American Woman Suffrage Association) accuses Alice Paul of having $25,000 and none was forwarded to the National Treasury. Alice argues that it was raised and they can do what they want with the money. Carrie Chapman Catt, the head of NAWSA, cut their funding and wanted to further investigate the situation. Was this true? Why did Alice Paul really split from NAWSA?
To find out the reality of what's portrayed in these clips, I searched and found a few different reasons why the party split. In the movie, it was a financial dispute between the Congressional Committee that governed the Congressional Union in regards to not giving incoming finances to the National Treasury. According to PBS.org Alice Paul was unhappy with Carrie Chapman Catt (the head of the Congressional Union & NAWSA) due to her conservative policies. PBS said Paul formed a more radical group known as the National Woman's Party (NWP) to focus efforts on President Wilson. Click here to view pbs.org
Americancivilwar.com said Paul's need to attract publicity and keep suffrage visible to the public and not shying away from confrontation was what led to the break with NAWSA. The website also said her party was called the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage which she found in 1913. As mentioned above, the name changed to the National Woman's Party in 1917.Click here to view the article for this information.
I found this article published on July 3, 1914 in the New York Times. It talks about Alice Paul and the Congressional Union and a hearing with the president and the court involving 500 women.
Click here to view the PDF version of the New York Times article.
-----
In the clip above, Inez and Alice are discussing the upcoming speaking tour across America. Inez boards the train and travels around giving speeches and encourages women to not vote for President Wilson if they want voting rights. I researched to see how much of this was truth and how much was fiction. This is what I found.
Inez Milholland Boissevain was known as the "woman on the horse" both in the movie and in reality. She was an icon and a symbol for the National Woman's Party during parades and pageants and speaking tours.
According to memory.loc.gov, in April of 1916, the Congressional Union for Women's Suffrage sent 23 members on "The Suffrage Special," a five-week train tour across the states to gather support for federal woman's suffrage. Another tour was sent in October of 1916 where Inez Milholland Boissevain began what would be her last speaking tour across the United States.
(From 1916-1919 there were many notable speaking tours involving the National Woman's Party but the one focused on in the movie is the one involving Inez's death.)
During Inez's speech about President Wilson and the Democratic Party, she collapsed on stage in Los Angeles. A few months later, she passed away from pernicious anemia at age 30. The scene involving Inez from the movie is in fact true and very accurate. Also mentioned in the article from memory.loc.gov, Inez was known as the first martyr of American women's suffrage campaign.
During this time, what was President Wilson saying regarding woman's suffrage?
According history.com, President Woodrow Wilson was "lukewarm" toward women's suffrage. History.com also said, "President Wilson was a former teacher at a women's college and the father of two daughters who considered themselves "suffragettes."" However, during the 1912 presidential election, Roosevelt was in favor of women's voting rights while Wilson was not. Click here to view history.com for the source of this information.
President Wilson continued to get picketed by woman suffragists in front of the White House until he supported the amendment and in years later. Finally, in 1918 he passed the 19th amendment granting woman the right to vote. Below you will read more about how that came about. Click here to view history.com for the source of this information.
------
January 10, 1917
On January 10, 1917 according to the New York Times, women suffragists representing the country were disappointed over the result of the appeal made to President Wilson regarding voting rights for women. The New York Times also said they planned to picket on the White House grounds making it impossible for the president to avoid them and the issue. The pickets were known as the "Silent Sentinels."
Click here to view the PDF in the New York Times
According to pbs.org, the "Silent Sentinels" protested in front of the White House holding banners saying, "Mr. President -- What will you do for woman suffrage?" beginning on Jan. 10. Click here to view pbs.org for the information above.
Click the image to see original source.
-----
Declaration of War
As seen in the clip, President Wilson declared war and the women don't know if they should continue to protest for their rights. Alice Paul and Lucy Burns decide picketing would be the best way to get their voices heard and it leads them to getting arrested.
According to eyewitnesstohistory.com, "At 8:30 on the evening of April 2, 1917, President Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress and asked for a declaration of war against Germany in order to "make the world safe for democracy." On April 4, Congress granted Wilson's request." Click here to view source at eyewitnesstohistory.com.
Lucy Burns and Alice Paul did in fact picket outside the White House for many months after the President's re-election and declaration of war. When WWI was declared, the picketing changed to banners protesting how America could fight for democracy when women didn't have it here in the United States. More information can be found here.
According to the New York Times, an article written on Aug. 10, 1917 said, "The president said we must not picket the White House," said Miss. Younger. "The only way to reach him is through picketing. He won't talk women's suffrage with us, and, to impress him we have to resort to our own methods."
The article talks about women's perspectives of picketing and why they're doing it. Another passage mentions President Wilson declaring war to give other countries democracy when our own country doesn't even have it. Click here to view the rest of the article from the New York Times.
In the video clip above, Lucy Burns mentions the only thing President Wilson is going to do during the war is tip his hat to the women outside the White House. I found a passage in an article on history.com mentioning a similar situation and found it interesting and intriguing. It said,
"According to the Library of Congress' American Memory archives, Wilson rode out of the White House gates on the morning of August 28 with his wife at his side and tipped his hat toward the protestors as usual. By this time, though, the suffragists had become increasingly disruptive and brandished anti-World War I slogans on their placards in addition to pleas for the vote and later that day the protestors and outraged bystanders who supported the war clashed. Many of the women were arrested and thrown in jail." Click here to view the article on History.com.
The events occurring in the clip above are in fact truth. The events are accurately framed and they portray the correct information based on my findings.
Maddie's Conclusion
Throughout my research and comparisons to the movie, I found that the majority of my section of the movie was truth. I can make this claim because my sources and fact checking provided supporting evidence. The movie was framed to make the women seem persistant and brave. After researching and finding out what they went through and to what extent, I dare make the claim that they are brave and that's the reality. In the movie, the women would stand outside the White House for hours and hours picketing while people tormented them and gawked in disbelief but the women carried on holding their signs and standing up for what they believed in. According to my research, that's in fact what happened. The pictures above prove that they protested many times and the facts about them going to jail proves that the people and government were unhappy.
Court Scene
The above clip from Iron Jawed Angles, although dramatized
by the movie’s director, does in fact portray the truth of what happened when
the NWP began protesting against President Woodrow Wilson outside the
Whitehouse. The events which were portrayed in the above clip occurred after
members of the NWP (National Woman’s Party) had been picketing the white house
for three months. According to the Smithsonian institute’s History Wired, the protests began, “On
March 4...In June the arrests began. At first the women would be rounded up and
a few jailed and then, after two or three days, the president would pardon
them.” Click here to view History wired article on this event. The movie frames
the pickets and arrests to happen simultaneously, when in reality they had
occurred a few months prior. However, the movie did emphasize the arrests and
the cause of the arrests true to the actual event. The women were indeed
arrested, and charged with obstructing traffic. Historian Evelyn L. Pugh
detailed the event in a publication by the League of Women Voters: “On
June 26, six women were tried, found guilty on the charge of obstructing
traffic, warned by the court of their “unpatriotic, almost treasonable
behavior” [Evelyn quoting old New York Times article] and sentenced to pay a
fine of $25 or serve three days in jail. Refusing to pay the fine, they became
the first women in the country to serve terms of imprisonment for demanding
suffrage.” (Click Here for Pugh’s publication from the Leauge of Women Voters of the Fairfax Area's publication.)
The library of
congress’s project, American Memory, details that the, “NWP activists
emphasized that their assembly on city sidewalks and their silent and peaceable
picketing had been conducted entirely within legal grounds. Under the
leadership of Paul and Burns they began insisting that the courts acknowledge
that the real motivation for their arrests was politically based. They also
placed the blame for the repressive response to their actions squarely on the
Wilson administration.” Click Here for Library of Congress article. The Movie
emphasized this feeling from the Library of Congress, as the movie showed each
woman claiming that they were held political prisoners, and they did nothing
wrong. Although this segment of Iron Jawed Angles does have a few
errors, they are not deliberately trying to alter what really happened, but
more deliberately making the errors as a necessity to keep the movie within a
reasonable time length.
At the time of the
incarceration, the New York Times
wrote articles which seemed sympathetic to the women’s cause. In a particular
article, which seems to be the article that the film makers used in reference
to the above court scene, the reporter interviews the court appointed counsel
who claims that the women did not commit the crime for which they were charged.
The Times article also reported that
the court appointed attorney was, “Rumored to have tendered his resignation as
collector of the port of New York in resentment over the attitude of the
national administration and the Washington Police toward the participants in
this latest militant demonstration.” (Click Here to read full article from The New York Times Archive.) The times
reported this “rumor,” because they sympathized with the NWA demonstrators, and
their false conviction. Article readers
at the time would have read that the court appointed counsel is rumored to have
left his job because of the way these women were treated. Whether or not these
were the intentions of the court appointed attorney, The New York Times reporting of this “rumor” does indeed seem to be
intended for article readers to sympathize with the activists, or else they
wouldn’t have printed a rumor. They cultivated this feeling of sympathy in
later articles which will be discussed in later clips.
Abuse at Occoquan
The above clip from Iron
Jawed Angles portrays the imprisonment of the picketers at the Occoquan
Workhouse. The girls are stripped of
their clothes, and stand naked, shivering, and wet as the matron stares them
down. If we look back for the truthfulness of this event in history we find
that the picketers who went to Occoquan were indeed stripped of their clothes.
Historian Evelyn L. Pugh, details the experience in the League of Women’s
Fairfax County publication. “Arriving at the Occoquan Workhouse, their clothes
were taken from them and they were given dresses and aprons of a coarse striped
fabric, and shoes with no right or left feet.” (Click Here for Pugh’s
publication from the League of Women Voters of the Fairfax Area's publication.) Although the reality is indeed that the women were stripped of
their clothes, the film aims for feelings of pity in the audience as the
picketers stand completely naked and humiliated in front of an unfeeling
matron. The movie frames this to be a major point of humiliation when
historical accounts such as Evelyn L. Pugh’s only allude to the women being
stripped of their clothes. The Picketers
in the film after accepting their new prison garb meet the superintendent of
the workhouse, Raymond Whittaker, who refuses to feed them until the next day’s
meal, even though they hadn't eaten for hours. Whittaker then shouts at them, “Now
you bed down,” as the male guards roughly put the girls in the cells. There are
various historical accounts of the roughness with which the picketers were
handled by the guards at Occoquan, and quite specifically the harshness of
superintendant Whittaker. Library of
Congress’s American Memory details, the violence in Occoquan, “Women were
beaten, pushed, and bodily carried and thrown into their cells when they
refused to cooperate and attempted to negotiate with the superintendent. Other
means of physical intimidation also were used. Dora Lewis was knocked
unconscious and Lucy Burns handcuffed with her arms above her head.” One key
emphasis the movie makes is how the character Lucy Burns, is handcuffed with
her hands above her head for an entire night. The above quote from the Library
of Congress’s American Memory does detail that Lucy Burns did have her hands
cuffed above her head for an entire night. Click Here for Library of Congress article.
The brutality portrayed in the film
is indeed what actually occurred. The film did leave out a significant
historical event that occurred while in the prison that led to the hunger
strike (see next section, “Hunger Strike”).
After insisting repeatedly that they were political prisoners, according
to the Library of Congress’s American Memory, thirty of the picketers were
beaten in what became known as the, ““Night of Terror.” Occoquan Superintendent
Raymond Whittaker threatened prisoners that he would end the picketing, even if
it cost some women their lives. On November 15, 1917, he instigated the use of force
by guards against a newly imprisoned set of pickets, a group that included many
core NWP national and state organizers.” (Click here to read about Night of
terror within the article on the NWP from the Library of Congress’s American
Memory Foundation.)
In August 1917, a Senator from Illinois named James Hamilton
Lewis visited the Occoquan Work House to see if the conditions were as bad as
the rumors from the prisoners had been.
Lewis was published in a New York Times article as saying that it “Was a
model place.” (Click Here to read Pickets Model Prison) Much to the later
chagrin of Mr. Lewis, the New York Times reported the abuse of the picketers.
The New York Times did eventually
report the abuse of the picketers. On November 25, 1917 an article on the
abuses was published. The article also
reported 25 prisoners were moved from the Occoquan Workhouse in part as a
result of the abuse. The article takes the story of Dr. John Winters Brannan’s
wife. Brannan testified in the court
hearings on behalf of his wife, which resulted in the removal of the NWA
Picketers from Occoquan. The Times reprinted Dr. John’s testimony in
their article entitled, “Move Militants From Workhouse.” Under the section
title, “Outrageously Handled”, Dr. Brannan states in the article that, “The
others, my wife tells me, were all brutally and outrageously handled, and are
all still caring bruises.” (Click Here to read article from New York Times Archive.) The New York Times could have easily not
reported the court proceedings, but instead they sought to report the facts
even though the public at the time was against how the NWP was demonstrating,
for the 19th amendment. In today’s modern world of journalism, we
can learn from The New York Times’
archive article that journalists need to seek the truth no matter the public
opinion.
Arresting of Alice
This clip from Iron
Jawed Angles shows how the protests continued despite members of the NWP
being arrested. The Library of Congress’s American Memory article on the NWP’s
activity states that, “As the process of picketing, arrest, sentencing, and
imprisonment continued from June into late fall 1917, former government
leniency and pardons gave way to more severe sentences.” (Click here to read
American Memory article.) The protests depicted in the film portray Protesters
holding banners with parts of Woodrow Wilson’s speeches. This was one of the
main strategies utilized by the NWP. They believed that, “Parroting Wilson’s
words helped to highlight the government’s hypocrisy in supporting democracy
abroad while denying its women citizens the right to vote at home.” (Click here
to read American Memory article.)
The movie also emphasized the banner which
began “Kaiser Wilson.” In the scene where protesters unveil this banner, Alice
Paul reads speeches from Woodrow Wilson about democracy (and then burns them),
which suggests that his administration is hypocritical to be fighting a war
defending Democracy, but to deny it to women. The burning of Wilson’s speeches
was indeed a practice of the NWP. “In January 1919 the focus again returned to
the White House with the burning of “watch fires of freedom.”(Click here to
read the article from History Wired.) Cauldrons were set up outside the White
House and in Lafayette Park to burn Wilson’s speeches and pressure him to use
his influence to secure the remaining two votes necessary for Senate passage of
the amendment.” (Click here to read about the protests from the Library of
Congress’s American Memory project, and for the source of the picture.) Although Alice Paul may or may not have
been involved in this protest, the depiction in the film was very similar to
one that the Historian Evelyn L. Pugh describes in a publication by the League
of Women Voters of the Fairfax area. “By the middle of August the banners read:
“Kaiser Wilson! Have you forgotten how you sympathized with the poor Germans
because they were not self-governed? Twenty million American women are not self
governed. Take the Beam out of your own eye!” This banner was the beginning of
mob violence against the picketers, frequently with the police just standing
by. Some of the attackers were uniformed servicemen. Banners were destroyed,
picketers dragged along the sidewalk, sashes torn off. One woman had her blouse
torn from her body. The headquarters of the National Woman’s Party, then
opposite the White House, was attacked. On one occasion, police watched while
three sailors brought a ladder, climbed to a balcony, tore down banners as well
as the flag. A bullet was even fired through one of the plate glass windows.” (Click here for the League of Women Voters of the Fairfax area's publication.) The movie’s banner was the same banner which was detailed in the above
account. As this scene in the movie
progresses, United States Navy personnel began ripping down the banner, and mob
violence begins against the protestors. Then when the Police arrive to stop the
violence, and arrest the protestors, they also become brutal toward the NWP
protesters. Both of these depictions in the movie are accounted for in the
historical account given by Evelyn L. Pugh. However the movie leaves out the
bullet shot, and sailors using ladders to rip down other posters whilst the
police watch. In the final scene of this clip, we see Alice Paul Emphasizing to
the judge that they are being charged purely for political reasons. The
National Museum of American History’s Shirley Abbot, answers the reality for us
in her article, Alice Paul and the
Women’s Suffrage Movement: “The
traffic obstruction charge was a shaky pretext. The women were political
prisoners, of course, and they knew it.” (Click here to read Alice Paul and the Women’s Suffrage Movement within the Library of Congress's American Memory article.)
The New York Times did report the violence
with which the NWP picketers were met. In one article they detail sailors
taking the picket signs down with the words, “Kaiser Wilson”. ( Click Here to
read “Three More Banners Lost by Suffragists”) The Times portrayed the feeling of the day in an article entitled
“Three more Banners Lost by Suffragists,” which details two banners with
“Kaiser Wilson,” written, were taken by naval officers. This supports the movies depiction of naval
officers taking the banners, but the timeline of the movie doesn’t match the
timeline of the protests. The burning of
the speeches occurred in January of 1919, but the initial “Kaiser Wilson”
posters began appearing in August.
(click here to read the description of the protest in The Library of
Congress’s American Memory) The movie
takes the liberty of combining the two, which alters the actual timeline of
history. The New York Times, articles
support the falsity of the movie timeline because the date when the articles
were published doesn’t coincide with the dates depicted in the movie. The
article was published in August of 1917. Two years earlier than the burning of
Wilson’s speeches. ( Click Here to read “Three More Banners Lost by
Suffragists”)
Hunger Strike:
At the beginning of
this clip from Iron Jawed Angles, we
find Alice Paul in solitary confinement. The matron brings her a plate of food
but realizes that Alice is not eating the meals that the Occoquan workhouse is
giving her. The matron says, “You know I am going to have to report this.”
Alice then explains to the matron that she is not eating until the imprisoned
NWP picketers are give adequate food, and clean buckets. The movie only partly
portrays the reality of the reasons behind the hunger strike started by Alice
Paul and Lucy Burns. The conditions of the food, and buckets were only a portion
of the reasons behind the hunger strike. The main reason, according to the
Library of Congress’s American Memory, was, “They refused to eat until their
political status was acknowledged. Hunger strikes became one of the most
powerful and graphic tools used by the NWP to gain public awareness of the dire
nature of the denial of rights to women.” (Click here to read the Library of
Congress’s American memory article on the NWP’s hunger strike.) The women were
continually denied political prisoner statuses by the courts, so the hunger
strikes multiplied as more women were brought to the Occoquan Workhouse. The
movie focuses on Alice Paul’s hunger strike, but does show the larger scale
hunger strikes vaguely in later scene (see force feeding of Alice below). This framing from the movie, although
historically accurate towards the account of Alice Paul, does seem to portray
the hunger strike in a smaller scale than it actually was. According to the
historian Evelyn L. Pugh, “[A] number of women, led by Lucy Burns of the
Executive Committee of the NWP, resorted to the ultimate weapon -- the hunger
strike.” (Click here to read Evelyn L. Pugh’s account in a publishing from, the
League of Women Voters of the Fairfax Area.)
The movie was also correct its portrayal
of Alice Paul’s imprisonment in Solitary Confinement, and in the workhouses
refusing her counsel. In the Museum of American History’s History Wired, Alice
Paul, “And her companions were
treated most roughly…held in solitary confinement and denied counsel.” (ClickHere to read the article from History Wired.) As Alice’s hunger strike continues, she is
taken by the guards in the middle of the night and forced into the Psychiatric
ward of the workhouse. When the psychiatrist asks why she is refusing meals,
she responds that she wants the same freedoms that a man enjoys, mainly voting
rights. Alice Paul was indeed held in the psychopathic ward according to The
Museum of American History’s “History Wired” the Occoquan Workhouse. “In a final attempt to discredit Paul,
she was confined to the psychopathic ward.” (Click here to read the article
from History Wired.) Overall this
specific clip is historically accurate, but does portray the hunger strike to
be on a smaller scale than it actually was—an inaccuracy.
An article from
the New York Times does support the
movie’s perceived reasons behinds Alice Paul’s hunger strike, and also displays
that the movie was accurate according to the day. The article claims that Alice
Paul, “Threatens to starve to death unless better food is provided for six
companions.” (Click here to read Miss Alice Paul on Hunger Strike.) There is a stark resemblance between
this reality, and the reality portrayed in the movie. However the article goes
onto explain that Alice was being held in the Workhouse’s hospital, which is
far from the reality portrayed in the movie, that she is being held in Solitary
Confinement. So the movie used this article when constructing the reality, but
also used another resource similar to the Museum of American History’s source,
because the movie also claims that after solitary confinement, she is being
held in the psychopathic ward. The movies creators may have confused the
psychopathic ward, with the workhouse hospital.
The New York Times by
publishing that Alice Paul was on a hunger strike, helped the strike be more
productive, thus helping the cause of the NWP. So it would seem that at the
time the Times, in reporting Alice
Paul’s hunger strike, did seem to take a stance on the issue of the 19th
amendment, although not explicitly. Instead the New York Times’ actions dictated their stance and support of the
NWP, or the lack of support they had for the government’s imprisonment of their
picketers.
Force Feeding of Alice:
In the above clip from the film Iron Jawed Angels Alice Paul is brought into the Occoquan Workhouse
mess hall, where she is roughly made to sit down near other members of the NWP
picketers imprisoned there. A plate of
food is placed in front of Alice, who still is on the hunger strike referred to
the above scene. Alice pushes the plate of food away. After the other women in
the workhouse realize what her actions mean, they whisper to each other, “Food
Strike,” and slide their plates of food away from themselves, following their
leader. One woman begins to sing a song
which all the women seem to know and soon the entire hall break out into song
to show Alice their support. The matron yells for them to be silent, but
physical force can’t quash the spirit of the protesters. Although the singing
portrayed in the film is not historically recorded, it is an effective way
showing the support and feelings of devotion the women of the NWP, and
particularly the prisoners, felt toward Alice Paul. Many women felt so much devotion that they
joined in Alice Paul’s hunger strike. The Library of Congress’s project
American Memory reports that the imprisoned members of the NWP, “Follow[ed] the
lead of Burns, Paul, and others, imprisoned pickets instituted a campaign of
nonviolent, “passive” resistance. They refused to do their assigned sweatshop
sewing and manual labor. Further, they refused to eat until their political
status was acknowledged.” (Click here to read the Library of Congress’s American memory article.)
As the clip
continues, Alice joins in the spirited song, and then she is taken out of the
mess hall by a herd of guards who take her into separate room, where they attempt
to force a tube down into her mouth and pour raw eggs down her throat against
her will. The Museum of American History’s “History Wired” describes the
reality of Alice Paul’s force feeding both accurately and graphically. “Miss Paul was several times forcibly fed.
(Force-feeding has little to do with nutrition; a tube is forced up the nose
and down the throat of the victim and liquid poured through it into the
stomach. It is a painful procedure and can cause illness or even death.)” (Click here for the article from the museum of American History.) The
movie portrayed the process quite true to the times. The film, instead
of hearing Alice choking and attempting to fight against the restraints which
bind her, the audience hears the continued singing of the women in the mess
hall. It is a dramatic scene because of
this, and grabs at the audiences heartstrings because we have realized that
Alice shouldn't be held in the prison, nor should she have to endure any of the
other injustices forced upon her.
The reality of this sequence is not only was
Alice force fed a number of times, but Lucy Burns, and number of other women
were also force fed. Instead of the tube
being forced down her throat, the tube was forced down Lucy Burns’ nose,
according to the Library of Congress’s “American Memory,” which resulted in,
“Bleeding and Injury.” (Click here to read the article from American memory.)
The depiction in the film does indeed draw the audience to the characters, and
portrays them as victims, which seems to also be true to history. The singing in the mess hall and during the
force feeding masterfully drew us to the women’s continual hope. Although the
singing is not recorded in historical accounts, it does portray the devotion
the women had toward Alice and other leaders, as said before. Please see the
next section “Papers Increase Pressure” for coverage of this event by the New
York Times.
(To continue watching scene from the above clip please go to second 0:26.)
Papers Increase Pressure:
This clip from Iron
Jawed Angles shows the public outcry against the Occoquan Workhouse, and
the Wilson Administration, for their treatment of the NWP picketers. The clip begins with many papers being
printed with scathing articles which talk about the force feeding of some of
the picketers, when their imprisonment was already under scrutiny by many
individuals. In reality there were a number of articles written by most of the
national papers. The New York Times
in particular printed detailed reports about the violence with which the women
were handled, particularly the force feeding. (Click here to read article) The Times seemed to have taken the side of
the NWP protesters in past articles, so they wouldn't have missed this chance
to critique the way the Occoquan Workhouse had dealt with the picketers. The
clip in the film then flashes to a spokesperson saying that the President had
ordered investigation into the reports, and found no abuse. An investigation
had indeed occurred, and had found that the picketers were living in a “Model Prison”. (click here to read the article)
The New York Times published an article in
which they detailed the investigation conducted by Senator James Hamilton Lewis
of Illinois. The article reported that Lewis had deemed the prison “Model”, but
the investigation had occurred long before there were reports emerging of the
force feedings. The coverage of the event in papers, were effectively
represented in the movie. Eventually we
see one of Alice’s old political action party connections talk frankly with the
President, which ends with the President deciding to release the NWP
picketers. The movie portrays that the
hunger strike caused the President to change his view of whether or not the
Nineteenth Amendment should be passed, although the President in the movie
claims that the hunger strike didn’t influence him at all stating that, “The
agitators have no influence here today.” History however does seem to reflect
the same reality that the movie portrays, whereas the newspapers at the time
seemed report what Wilson was saying as truth.
The Library of Congress’s “American Memory” article on the NWP protests
reports that “The public outcry over the prisoners’ treatment led to the
release of Paul, Burns, and other suffrage prisoners at the end of November
1917”. The Museum of American History’s “History Wired” reported that, “The subsequent storm of critical publicity was such that the Administration itself soon called for the release of all suffrage prisoners.” (Click here to
read the article from the Museum of American History’s History Wired.) It seems
that history has determined that Wilson’s administration did indeed let the
women leave because of the public outcry cultivated by the newspapers. After
this scene occurs, the movie quickly moves to the day that the Amendment was
passed in Tennessee, (See Tennessee: the last state to give women voting rights)
This would leave the audience guessing that nothing important had occurred
between the release of the NWP picketers, and the passage of the amendment,
however an entire second movie could have been made on what occurred between
these two events. Arrests of the
Picketers continued despite the release of the prisoners. (see Library of
Congress’s American Memory) The fight for the amendment’s passage took months
to get through the senate, and the NWP continued protesting the entire time,
including a train tour where they publicized their cause. (Click here to read
about the train tour from the League of Women Voters in the Fairfax Area.) The Museum of American History’s “History
Wired” reports that as soon as,
“…Alice Paul got out of jail, she went back to
work. One thing she did was to have commemorative pins made for the women who
went to prison for the cause. Perhaps Wilson, in the end, forgave the Woman's
Party for making an aggressive nuisance of itself. In any case, Alice Paul
eventually forgave him. Once converted, Wilson became a warm advocate of
suffrage--and the Woman's Party never ceased picketing and demonstrating lest
Wilson or anyone else forget that the suffragists meant business.”
(Click here to read the article from the Museum of American History’s History
Wired.)
The movie was limited in time, so the director chose to
focus in on the influence of the hunger strike, and force feeding. This choice
did limit the amount of history which could be depicted; however it did not
limit the accuracy with which the film could be written.
(Start at 4:50 and go until 6:00)
The suffragists’ plight did not end immediately after the
release of the NWP’s leader, Alice Paul, as discussed above; however the movie
does not detail the plights but instead jumps to June of 1920 when the
Tennessee legislature became the last state legislature to enact the intended
suffragist’s amendment. This final clip from Iron Jawed Angles does not go into the months of struggle which
occurred in the U.S. senate or the influence of President Wilson on the final
passage of the amendment. The League of Women Voters of the Fairfax area
article on the passage of the 19th amendment summarizes that the
struggle took a turning point, “In May 1919, the House of the 66th Congress
passed the Nineteenth Amendment 304 to 90 and on June 4, the Senate passed it
66 to 30. The final battles took place during the ratification process. The
crusaders had to win in thirty-six legislatures; opponents could defeat it in
just thirteen.” (Click here to read the League of Women Voters of the Fairfax
area’s article.)
Both in the movie and
in reality the “Susan B. Anthony” Amendment, for which the picketers had
starved and fought, came down to the state of Tennessee. The movie frames the
amendment to have passed by the smallest of margins. In the above clip from Iron Jawed Angles, we hear the
legislators of Tennessee voting ye or ne.
As the camera slides to a young senator who receives a telegram from his
mother, the audience holds its breath as the state house waits for the senator
to vote. The senator stands takes off the red rose which previously represented
his lack of support for the amendment and yells “YE.” The move is quite true to
the reality of the passage of the amendment as summarized in The League of
Women Voters of the Fairfax area article which reported the events. According
to the article, the amendment’s passage began, “Late in June, [when] President
Wilson, following NAWSA’s pleading, wrote Tennessee's governor, Albert H.
Roberts, urging a special session and ratification. After 14 months, on August
18, 1920, the Tennessee legislature ratified the Nineteenth Amendment by a
single vote, that of 24-year old Harry Burn, whose mother had written to him
that morning, “Hurrah, and vote for suffrage!” (Click here to read the League
of Women Voters of the Fairfax area’s article.) When the United States Secretary of State was notified,
he issued the Nineteenth Amendment's proclamation immediately before breakfast
on August 26, 1920, in order to head off any final obstruction.”
The scene
flashes to a newly bobbed Alice in the NWP protest headquarters as she gets on
the phone and smiles at a room full of women who break out into cheers. We leave our characters feeling hopeful as
they let fly stars cut by children representing not only the happiness that our
Picketers feel, but also the new sense of purpose that all women received with
the passage of the hard fought amendment. No historical record could portray
the true joy that Alice and other imprisoned members of the NWP felt. They had been force-fed and beaten, and their
country had turned its back on them, all for a single amendment. Whenever a group of individual fights as hard
as these women did, the joy cannot be described.
Blake’s Conclusion:
It is increasingly crucial to compare the realities of
movies and the histories they represent in the growing age of technology. In
class we have talked about the fact that most Americans understand history
through the constructions they view in their films. The same is true with Iron Jawed Angles. Without further
reference and comparison of the reality and this film, an audience would
believe that the hunger strikes were far more influential than they actually
were. They would assume that the papers had a huge public sway which actually
forced the passage of the amendment, when in reality, the separation between
the amendment’s passage and the hunger strike is arguably a crucial mistake of
the films framing. The papers were very
influential in the release of the NWP picketers, but the amendment took another
three years to gain support by the public.
The events did lead to the eventual passage, but indirectly. It brought the issue to national attention,
which then lead the approval of the amendment through one local legislature at
a time. The framing of movies is so crucial because otherwise the majority of
Americans’ perceptions are reflected by how the event is framed in film. However another crucial point this project
has taught me is that the way the event is reflected at the time alters the
mass public’s opinion as well. The New York Times articles I about which I
have written framed the event by the details the included or left out. With the
hindsight of 20/20, The New York Times
did frame the event with a certain degree of balance; however they also seemed
to have an agenda which reflected the NWP’s motives positively. The agenda was
to give a voice to those who without the Time’s
help wouldn’t have lead to the changes that we can read about now. The Times did have an agenda behind the ways
in which they framed their articles, but it turned out to be a frame which
helped American society progress. A common cliché is that journalism is at the
forefront of society. With today’s uncertainty about the future of journalism, we
can be certain that if we have journalists who reflect the journalism we saw on
the part of The New York Times within
the lens of this event, it will continue to forge beneficial paths into the
unknown that envelops our society.
