PDA

View Full Version : Cold Mountain



LParsons
07-17-2006, 05:15 PM
I was just wondering if anyone else here likes this book/movie. I thought it was pretty good, it showed a more personal side of war, and what its like for people left behind, and for someone who is just sick of violence in his life.

tompritchett
07-17-2006, 11:30 PM
Personally I liked it when I saw it. Renee Zwillinger (sp?) made the movie. However, I have had no interest in seeing it again when it has come on the movie channels.

VaTrooper
07-18-2006, 12:25 AM
Other than the LeMat I liked it.

Wounded_Zouave
07-18-2006, 09:27 AM
I didn't like it. Call me a prude if you will, but to me Cold Mountain is nothing more than a softcore porn film.

-Cyruss Simons

VaTrooper
07-18-2006, 11:25 AM
No offense but if thats you idea of softcore porn then I bet your kids dont get to watch any TV nowadays.

Frenchie
07-18-2006, 11:53 AM
If what Cyruss means is that the sex scene is way overdone, I agree. It adds nothing to the story; in fact, it detracts from it a great deal.

Other things I didn't like were the Home Guard's over-the-top sadistic violence and the 1950s cowboy movie gunplay, the usual Hollywood "don't aim, yank the trigger, hit the target dead-center" garbage.

I predicted that the movie would be a travesty of the book and, sadly, I wasn't wrong.

VaTrooper
07-18-2006, 12:18 PM
The whole movie built up to the sex scene. You cant expect for them just to walk inside the shack and that be the end if it. Sex sells.

LParsons
07-18-2006, 01:57 PM
The main problem i had with it, (i still liked it btw, i expected the sex scene, and the John Wayne gunplay, it is a hollywood blockbuster:rolleyes: ), was the FREAKIN ENDING, book and movie, i wish he didn't die, but at least he didn't die out in some field in Virginia.

Frenchie
07-18-2006, 04:56 PM
The whole movie built up to the sex scene. You cant expect for them just to walk inside the shack and that be the end if it. Sex sells.

William, it's obvious you didn't read the book. They could have done the sex scene exactly as it was written and it would have been far better for the story and for kids.

VaTrooper
07-18-2006, 05:27 PM
I have read, and own, the book. But it has been a long time since Ive read it. So I'll take your word on it.

reb64
07-19-2006, 12:09 PM
If what Cyruss means is that the sex scene is way overdone, I agree. It adds nothing to the story; in fact, it detracts from it a great deal.

Other things I didn't like were the Home Guard's over-the-top sadistic violence and the 1950s cowboy movie gunplay, the usual Hollywood "don't aim, yank the trigger, hit the target dead-center" garbage.

I predicted that the movie would be a travesty of the book and, sadly, I wasn't wrong.


Read the book on the Buggers wars, you will find even more graphic sadistic violence from homeguard, rape, mutilations, burnings, partial hangings etc. The fence torture was common. Having multiple pistols was also a common feature of these renegades/homeguard/guerilla types union and csa.
I just wonder why in the film if he is going to the NC mountains why is he hugging the coastline, from Richmond to the nc mountians is very ocean less.

Wounded_Zouave
07-19-2006, 01:27 PM
It's not just the final sex scene that I found too much. It's the entire movie. The woman in the cabin who throws herself at the Confederate soldier... the girl taking them across the river who wants to prostitute herself... But it's all "pretty tame" as a friend said to me. But it's "realistic" he says... those things happened. Yeah, and it's also pretty degrading to watch it especially if you try and live life by any kind of moral code. If we could bring some Civil War era Americans back to life to watch what we so cavalierly call "entertainment" they would be nauseated by it.

Beyond that, let's look at some of the other "history" this turkey film has to offer. The Battle of the Crater for example. The crater is simply too big, too deep, and too Hollywood. During that entire battle scene you see only one USCT when in reality there were several black regiments present. Yeah, I know they filmed it in Romania or some such place... no black people in that part of the world to be extras. So I guess Hollywood never heard of airplanes? They couldn't have hired say, fifty black extras from the middle east or North Africa and flown them in? Puh-lease. The historical stiffing they give the USCTs, and by extension all African-Americans, in that scene is even more repulisve than the moral degradation the audience is constantly subjected too. Ironically, in the "making of" short on the DVD they show the filmmakers being given a tour of the crater by a black NPS ranger. Hello, Hollywood? Did you not listen to a single word he might have said? Hattie McDaniel may have been given an Academy Award for "Gone With the Wind," but she sat at her table all by herself at the awards ceremony, not good enough to sit with the white folks. Faux-liberal Hollywood is still making her sit there today.

I'm sorry, but Cold Moutain repulses me on several levels. For all the historical innaccuracies in films from "Glory" to "The Red Badge of Courage," at least those films had a heart and soul. Cold Mountain has neither.

reb64
07-19-2006, 05:13 PM
[QUOTE=Wounded_Zouave]

If we could bring some Civil War era Americans back to life to watch what we so cavalierly call "entertainment" they would be nauseated by it.

QUOTE]

We all have different sensibilities but morality was varied devout to decrepid. while the faithful kept bible study, others enjoyed porn,liquor, prostitutes gambling. theymay find our entertainment/behavior tame and subdued. yuor idea of what a civil war movie should be may be clean and still great, but there is nothing wrong with portraying the other side. Does that make it immoral , or just historically correct viewing?

Wounded_Zouave
07-20-2006, 07:35 AM
We all have different sensibilities but morality was varied devout to decrepid. while the faithful kept bible study, others enjoyed porn,liquor, prostitutes gambling. theymay find our entertainment/behavior tame and subdued. yuor idea of what a civil war movie should be may be clean and still great, but there is nothing wrong with portraying the other side. Does that make it immoral , or just historically correct viewing?Yes, I know... people back then were not much different than they are now. They had dirty pictures and dirty books and dirty minds. Just like 20th/21st century Americans. The difference is that unless you were in a place like the Five Points, immorality wasn't generally paraded around in public the way it is in today's culture.

While the war certainly brought about a greater acceptance of immoral activity, especially among soldiers in the field, it didn't dominate the media culture. For example, when cycloramas, the equivalent of today's movies, were popular they didn't graphically portray Ancient Roman orgies. Sure it would have been "historically correct," but the general public would not have stood for it. In 19th century America pornographic carte-de-visites were indeed being sold, but not openly in downtown storefronts. Some of Shakespeare's plays are sexually charged, but it was not commonplace to have them publically performed with people having sex on stage in front of an audience sitting in the dark.

We in reenacting make a lot of noise about "honoring" our forefathers, but Cold Mountain doesn't honor them at all. I don't see how a gratuitous scene of a woman trying to seduce a Confederate deserter by wagging her bare behind at him honors anything... other than her bare behind. Could/did such things happen in mid-19th century America? Yes, of course. But we degrade ourselves and their memory by getting our kicks out of watching it.

It would be "historically correct" to say that some women were raped by soldiers during the Civil War. But as reenactors, would we ever seriously consider reenacting such a scene for the public? Of course not. The very idea is not only repugnant to us, it is preposterous to even contemplate. Certainly in an objective and academic setting we can mention the fact that such things occurred during the war. But it doesn't mean we should reenact it.*


*(Of course, sadly, if Hollywood wanted to film such a scene there would be plenty of reenactors willing to degrade themselves by taking part just to get their mugs on the screen and a few dollars in their pockets.)

reb64
07-20-2006, 03:53 PM
[QUOTE=Wounded_Zouave]Yes, unless you were in a place like the Five Points, immorality wasn't generally paraded around in public the way it is in today's culture.


I beg to differ, today prostitution is largely illegal, then there were brothels everywhere , even army sponsored ones like in nashville, gambling is illegal today, back then games of chance halls were everywhere, no regulation. Also you could shoot a gun gnerally anywhere, a act that seems to be a federal crime now. Shootings were commonplace and judged by common sense, now you brandish a gun you are automatically wrong. And I don't know how that lessens their deeds and honor, by being truthful. They weren't saints, they were mostly young men soldiers whose mission was to kill the enemy. Drug addiction became widespread by this war as well, and afterwards dope/pipe shacks and tents popped up everywhere (in public view), today that is a no-no.

tompritchett
07-20-2006, 08:23 PM
There are some ways in which we have progressed morally well beyond then - government ethics, with the exception of Congress. Now almost all governments have regulations governing conflicts of interest, again with the exception of Congress and many state legislatures. Back then graft and insider deals were very common.

Just food for thought.

Frenchie
07-20-2006, 08:44 PM
Also you could shoot a gun gnerally anywhere, a act that seems to be a federal crime now. Shootings were commonplace and judged by common sense, now you brandish a gun you are automatically wrong.

Where and when were shootings "commonplace"?

reb64
07-21-2006, 12:58 PM
Here in my town, est 1850's, also lawrence ks 1840's on, mo-kansas borders, abolitionist vs pro slavers in lecompton, killing natives and parading body parts through towns etc,

sbl
07-21-2006, 04:32 PM
"softcore porn film"


And no enough of it.

Frenchie
07-21-2006, 08:12 PM
Here in my town, est 1850's, also lawrence ks 1840's on, mo-kansas borders, abolitionist vs pro slavers in lecompton, killing natives and parading body parts through towns etc,

Obviously thee and me have different definitions of "commonplace". I live near Baltimore, a perennial contender for "Murder Capital of the USA", and shootings there are more frequent than in any 19th century American town.

Parenthetically, all the urban centers that compete for that unhappy distinction (Washington DC, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, etc.) are also places with harsh laws intended to disarm criminals, but that end up only disarming lawful citizens and leaving them all but helpless to defend themselves against criminals who can get all the guns they need anyway (because they ignore the laws - that's why they're criminals).

reb64
07-21-2006, 09:22 PM
Well yes there is more crime now possibly, with higher populations number wise. You would have to compare ratios, shooitngs per hundred/thouseand etc. The point I allude dtoo is that today in Baltimore the shootings go on but the perps don't carry firearms openly and the shootings are considered crimes. Back then carrying of loaded weapons wasn't universally frowned on and the shootings no big deal.

Frenchie
07-23-2006, 10:33 PM
I should have been more precise. In those urban areas I spoke of, the shootings per 100,000 of the population are higher than in any 19th century American city. Simply put, the "wild West" of the Saturday matinées and early television is 90% myth and 5% legend (come to think of it, it still is).

People who, whenever another state passes a "shall-issue" concealed carry permit law or allows people to actually defend themselves when attacked (e.g., Florida's new "castle" law), fly into hysterics and cry that the "streets will run with blood" just like in the "wild West", with gunfights at intersections and in supermarket checkout lines, are talking arrant nonsense. They do nothing but prove to those of us who actually know something that they are invincibly ignorant or, at best, misled and too lazy to find the truth for themselves. At worst, of course, they are lying in order to gain power and influence at the cost of our freedom. Fortunately they are losing and, Lord willing, will never regain the upper hand.

Where'd this soapbox come from, and how did I come to be standing on it?

reb64
07-24-2006, 11:10 PM
You really do live in a different world. Please come visit Kansas and stop in the local towns museums. You will find all kinds of local history, shootings, mysterious murders, bleeding kansas fights, quantrill early days in council grove/diamond springs kansas. Massacres. No, hollywood was tame compared to the history here. hey and we have a concealed carry law here. heck you can carry a loaded ak47 around town where I live.

Frenchie
07-25-2006, 08:31 PM
Well, I guess the debate is over. First you suggest that I'm insane, then you run away from the point of discussion while waving your arms and blathering vague, inaccurate inanities to divert attention. Wouldn't it have been easier just to say you gave up? (shrug) I guess not.

reb64
07-25-2006, 08:52 PM
I didn't giv erup, just saw I wasn't getting through, just like talking to a liberal going nowhere. I had the same mentality once when I lived in va. I thought I was superior and all eastern events superior to the war effort and it's history but I was wrong. Living out west has opened my eyes about the true nature of the war, it started here in ks-mo and the numerous evetns here were just as important or more, plus the west is totally different even today, common sense in action still rules

shanifaye
03-04-2008, 09:45 PM
I've been reading and lurking around for a little while, while waiting to be able to make a "plea for help" post in another forum and stumbled on this thread.

The real W P Inman was my 3rd great uncle (My 3rd great grandfather died at Camp Douglas, he refused to sign the oath and died Christmas day of 1864 of Erysipelas...WP, along with another brother did sign and they were let go). Its my cousin Charles that wrote the book.

I grew up hearing the real story of what happened, so needless to say when the book came out I was in the family camp that was put off by it and not happy.

If anyone is interested in some of the real details, and my trip to where Inman and his best friend John Swanger were shot I have written up by trip in my blog and you're more than welcome to stop by and on my genealogy site, and you're more than welcome to stop by and read it and see some pictures

http://ancestrallychallenged.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=84

(you do not have to register on the forum to see it, the link will take you straight to it, I would have posted the link to my blog, but it probably contains a whole bunch of stuff you dont want to wade thru to get to it lol)

jgr1974
03-04-2008, 11:05 PM
I thought the movie was entertaining. I did have a problem with the acrobatic albino!

The Mad MICk!

Frenchie
03-04-2008, 11:13 PM
I didn't giv erup, just saw I wasn't getting through, just like talking to a liberal going nowhere. I had the same mentality once when I lived in va. I thought I was superior and all eastern events superior to the war effort and it's history but I was wrong. Living out west has opened my eyes about the true nature of the war, it started here in ks-mo and the numerous evetns here were just as important or more, plus the west is totally different even today, common sense in action still rules

If you ever again so much as infer that I'm a liberal, I'll hunt you down and force you to take a reading conmprehension course and complete the entire Hooked on Phonics series.

Pete K
03-05-2008, 07:37 AM
and was disappointed in the film. Directors put their spin on the author's work and you get two varied images as the consumer of the story. I'm glad I read the novel first. I use the Petersburg scene for my students because it gets their attention, then I fill in , as Paul Harvey would say, "the rest of the story"

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
03-05-2008, 09:03 AM
Hallo!

The "escape clause," IMHO, between books and movies is the wording...

"Based on the book by...."

Where "based" is a loose sliding scale.

CHS

sbl
03-05-2008, 10:04 AM
I read the book and enjoyed it. The Odyssey theme was right up front there. The varius adventures were much more odd and mysterious than captured in the film plus I just find Nichol Kiddman too icey for my tastes.

The Petersburg scene in the film... neat! Some flaws but the spirit of the event was there. I don't think I'd jump arse-first into a hole full of men with bayonets.

I've walked Petersburg a couple of times and it's still awe inspiring.