Shut Up And Sing Analysis

Shut up & Sing is a film directed by Cecilia Peck and Barbara Kopple that tells the story of the Dixie Chicks, a country girl band, and the career changing event that took place. In 2003, the night before the U.S was to go to war with Iraq, lead singer Natalie Maines decided to speak in between the band’s set regarding the war and President Bush. Maine says in front of the band’s London audience, “Just so you know, we’re on the good side with y’all. We do not want this war, this violence. And we’re ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas.” This comment spread fairly quickly and did not settle well with folks back home. It was soon the cause for thousands of phone calls to country radio stations demanding that the Dixie Chicks …show more content…
Authorities of this time, compared to our current era, were much stricter about speech critical of the government and did not hesitate to suppress outspoken opinions that they believed were seditious. Soon after this sedition became a well-known act, certain determining standards were set in place like bad tendency. But because bad tendency was a very loose standard and only required that the message might create a problem later if allowed to continue, the Dixie Chicks’ speech would have been interpreted more harshly. If Natalie Maines had spoken negatively about the government on the eve of war in front of thousands of foreign listeners in colonial times, she may very well have gone to trial for sedition because of how tough officials were on opposing public opinions. Colonial authorities would most likely believe that Maines spoken opinions might cause a shift in other citizens’ thoughts towards the government and they very well would think that she might continue to speak ill of the government if not controlled quickly. Also, I’d like to emphasize the difference here in how in 2003 the people of America were the ones creating protests and causing more uproar than Bush himself, but in colonial times the Chicks would have definitely been getting much more heat from both the people and the government. With that being said, it is curious …show more content…
I appreciate that the producers did not create a dramatization and instead used the real scenes they were able to capture. The benefit of telling the band’s story as it happened and with the actual artists is that the viewers are able to connect on a deeper level with Maines, her band mates, and their raw reactions and feelings about something that was so critical to their career and lives. We were able to see the real threats and hardships that they faced instead of recreations which would have had the chance of being portrayed poorly. As a documentary, we were also able to see them as they are, as normal and imperfect people rather than a seemingly outspoken group of women that tabloids and news stations made them out to be. Arguably, it would have been possible to emulate the feelings and thoughts of the band using actresses and sets, but this being a documentary gave people the chance to see the band and events as they were allowing viewers to have their own untainted opinions. I do not believe I would have produced or edited this documentary any differently because it seemed to embody every aspect and viewpoint one could imagine. We saw the incident itself, true reactions and conversations, real protesters during the actual protests, and even footage of President Bush responding to the speech. As artists, usually the