PDA

View Full Version : Gods and Generals



BigDuke634
07-23-2008, 12:08 AM
Just a passing thought....... how would you make the movie better?

Brian Wolle
07-23-2008, 01:21 AM
Handing out no-doze to all viewers might help.

It just seemed they couldn't tell where it was good and where it wasn't.

Too many Jacksonian pontifications!

Did not like Duvall's Lee either. And the scene where he snaps at the guy who offered him the Union command -didn't happen like that and totally out of character. So much for improving on Martin Sheen.

Doug Cooper
07-23-2008, 01:31 AM
Hire a real director, use many fewer reenactors (and pay the ones you do use) and base it on a good book instead of a Jeff Shaara stream of conciousness. In its present form it is one of the very worst history-based "movies" ever made.

sbl
07-23-2008, 06:55 AM
More T & A. But not as much as "North and South."

Also cut the "tableaux vivants" type of scenes with the "great men."

The sun also shown on Northerners and their wives loved them passionately.

Get Peter Jackson's crew to do the CGI.

ejazzyjeff
07-23-2008, 08:17 AM
Big issue is having Ron Maxwell as the writer, producer and director. I think he had too many hats and couldn't stay focused. I know when I saw it, people were walking out on the movie.

ElizabethClark
07-23-2008, 09:20 AM
Do basic, basic, basic research on women's and children's clothing and hair. Seriously. Gone with the Wind did a better job, and it's farbtastic.

In this case, the plot, pacing, and acting were not good enough to distract me from the dreadful costuming. I've never been able to make it through the first half of the movie.

sbl
07-23-2008, 09:57 AM
"Do basic, basic, basic research on women's and children's clothing and hair. Seriously. Gone with the Wind did a better job, and it's farbtastic."

That whole story of Jackson and the little girl was spoiled for me in part by the 1880s clothing.

BigDuke634
07-23-2008, 10:17 AM
As for me, I was disappointed in the forced dialogue, and in parts the hammed up Southern accents. Sounded like a bad high school play.

molly5971
07-23-2008, 10:24 AM
I'm glad I'm not the only one that thought the hair and clothes were a little farby! That's what really ruined the movie for me.

ILYankee5
07-23-2008, 11:32 AM
To me GaG just drags on. To many long drawn out speeches by Chamberlain and Jackson. I guess the best way to describe it is; when you are watching a musical the actors will say a certain line and you can tell by the background music a song is coming on. Well, a certain event starts to unfold and wham; someone is quoting someone or making a speech.

Plus (echoing others) the clothes and hair of the ladies Jackson spends Christmas with are right out of the 1880's/'90's. Plus, the acting of the less well known actors is...well...you saw the movie.

A good poll would be either what is your favorite Civil War based movie OR what is your least favorite Civil War movie?

huntdaw
07-23-2008, 11:45 AM
Didn't this already get covered ad nauseum several times on different threads?

sbl
07-23-2008, 11:56 AM
Didn't this already get covered ad nauseum several times on different threads?


Yeah, but not by the newer folks. And there's been a few new movies since GAG.

ILYankee5
07-23-2008, 12:07 PM
I have read The Last Full Measure and I firmly believe it would make for a better screen play if someone would do it justice and take their time with it to get it right so to speak. But even then someone will find something wrong with it somewhere. I was thinking of some good people to play the characters in LFM...my dad just sarcastically "Stephan Lang as Grant" and we both just busted up laughing.

DColeman
07-23-2008, 01:22 PM
Handing out no-doze to all viewers might help.

It just seemed they couldn't tell where it was good and where it wasn't.

Too many Jacksonian pontifications!

Did not like Duvall's Lee either. And the scene where he snaps at the guy who offered him the Union command -didn't happen like that and totally out of character. So much for improving on Martin Sheen.


Brian,
Don't be busting on my fellow Leesburg residents! ;-)

Micah Trent
07-23-2008, 05:39 PM
Didn't this already get covered ad nauseum several times on different threads?

Several times. I guess some just can't get enough of it and continue to look for that one thought that would have changed the film from worse to not as worse.
In the mean time, we get to sit back and read the new folks thoughts and rehash the same old ideas.
Popcorn or Goobers anyone?

Craig L Barry
07-23-2008, 06:39 PM
At 42:11 (according to my DVD player) there is a scene which rescues the entire movie for me. For about ten seconds there is shown in the background a weary, overheated and downcast though surprisingly well-nourished Confederate infantryman, seemingly bearing the whole weight of the southern cause on his broad shoulders. He gracefully stumbles along with his smoothbore US 1842 musket before the camera pans away showing General Bee's South Carolinians re-forming with Jackson's brigade. At one point our hero from 42:11 is nearly run down by a caisson and then almost immediately again by a careless cavalryman, though for a man his size he deftly sidesteps both hazards with verve and panache. For ten seconds, it packs a lot of action and suspense. Will he make it to safety? The question remains for the viewer to answer after careful introspection. And after that, I have to admit the film begins to drag. I could feel many in the audience with me about to scream with impatience "Bring back that tubby Confederate from 42:11" and though all were very disappointed that he failed to appear again, there were no riots and all the patrons were able to contain themselves at least until the majority left at the intermission.

And on the basis of that single largely overlooked (until today) yet subtle performance, which for reasons still unexplained was completely overlooked by the Academy at Oscar time, I have been able to list G n G among my three film credits. Note to all: Hollywood feeds better for a few days volunteer film work than the NPS.

sbl
07-23-2008, 07:33 PM
More Kali Rocha please


http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/57143415.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1939847EC77F5F8D1CEC10A3DFF996A4BE8 A40A659CEC4C8CB6

Sgt_Pepper
07-23-2008, 07:48 PM
More Kali Rocha please

Okay, now that, I can get behind :lol:

Bitter_Bierce
07-23-2008, 07:49 PM
Originally Posted by huntdaw
Didn't this already get covered ad nauseum several times on different threads?Yes and it deserves to come up again and again and again until Ron Maxwell decides to forever drop the idea of ever making Last Full Measure into a film.

Maxwell's six biggest mistakes:

(1) Making Jeff Shaara's book, Gods and Generals into a movie in the first place. (Shaara definately got better with time, but his first book reeked.)

(2) Maxwell didn't change the title to something else. He threw out the great title The Killer Angels for the first film, but kept the awful title for the second film. Gods and Generals sounds like its a move about Colin Powell and Norman Schwarzkopf discussing Greek mythology over a long dinner.

(3) Not getting all new actors. Berringer was out and Sheen was out, but not the rapidly aging and weight-gaining Daniels. And the guy playing Hancock in both films is a complete embarrassment.

(4) Having Robert Duval play Robert E. Lee. Yeah, I know, this is heresy to say so. Duval is indeed a great actor and he does a good job in the film but but he was in his 70s at the time and too old to play a man in his 50s.

(5) Using reenactors. The battle scenes look like what they are: Civil War reenactors running around in front of a camera. (Oddly enough, Cold Mountain also looks like what it is: Non-reenactor Romanian soldiers running around in front of a camera and fumbling with muskets they don't know how to handle.)

(6) Putting a clown like... (a brief pause while I vomit).... Senator Robert Byrd in the film for a cameo appearance.

Brian Wolle
07-23-2008, 09:42 PM
Great humor you guys!

Anyway, it was promised GAG would be about Hancock and what's his face from before the war. No where to be seen.

Don't forget that stupid scene with Old Jack and his slave cook (or was he his stock broker) in the street in the night in the snow. Gosh i was moved to tears. But then i remembered I got in free...

reb64
07-23-2008, 10:24 PM
Just a passing thought....... how would you make the movie better?


not the best but Im looking forward to the extra footage not included. Some of the scenes cant be found in any other movie, such as the generals at a christmas dinner, the flags at the opening, the chancerlorsville flanking, the mississippi refusal of the engineer boat crossing. yeah it was lacking but okay. One of my all time favorites is the horse soldiers, pure farb fom top to bottom but one heck of a movie growing up.

sbl
07-24-2008, 06:44 AM
Kali could also play Monica Lewinski....

GrumpyDave
07-24-2008, 07:17 AM
Burn your copy. Destroying Ozone is better for you than watching that...whatever it was.

OVI
07-24-2008, 01:14 PM
I have posted my feelings about "Jesus & Jackson" before, but it remains in my mind the worst attempt at a Civil War movie ever. Too long, too unfocused, poorly acted, poor directed, terrrible CGI, horrible costuming etc.
It probably has more "run screaming from the theater" moments than any other period film I have ever sat thru.
And finally, lets not forget the damage it did to our hobby. Its disaster at the box office (deserved) will ensure it will be many years before any sane investor puts their wallet behind another CW epic. No more free background artist work for "face time", to say nothing about all the would be recruits GAG was expected to swell our shrinking ranks.
Im glad to hear that Ron Maxwell has moved on to tackle another historic period...the West.
My view is that someone should write a new screenplay of the Red Badge of Courage and get it to the folks at HBO for a mini series. Wishful thinking.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Thumbs Down Mess"

sbl
07-24-2008, 02:02 PM
"Im glad to hear that Ron Maxwell has moved on to tackle another historic period...the West."

..and he's a "conservative" speaker.

He doesn't have any current projects on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0561813/

reb64
07-24-2008, 02:39 PM
Just a passing thought....... how would you make the movie better?


While its been slammed here, I don't recall Gettysburg being much better from the too-tubby picket to Harrison the spy and cigar lines, the drugged up Lee, the "good ground" fiasco, the rebel that gets shot twice, Confederates throwing their rifles down then jumping the fence at Pickett's Charge. It was pretty cheesy too.

VA Soldier
07-24-2008, 06:30 PM
While I am sure what I am about to write will bring about a litany of replies and scorn but here goes anyway.

I enjoyed the movie. In fact I enjoy it more so than Gettysburg. Sure its long and no maybe they didn't get every detail right. I guess I don't know enough about the costuming to get bent out of shape for it.

What I see when I see the movie is an attempt to zoom in on a couple of the juggernauts of the South, namely Lee and Jackson.

Just like many movies there are plenty of things that they did wrong, but I doubt if Hollyweird will ever make a 100% historically accurate movie. There are plenty of good things that can be pulled from this movie. For one, in watching the battle of Manassas you get to see the fire in the eyes of those green troops and how they let the emotions of the day overrun them, or the carnage and the reactions of seasoned veterans at Fredricksburg.

You get to see basic character differences, that from what written accounts I have found are fairly accurate between the yanks and rebs.

Could have used a little more action but for whatever reason, and maybe I am just too out of it to get it, I find it a poignant story based on historical fact. There are some good lines, some good acting and some good action. Could it have been better yes, but yes it could have been worse as well. If you dislike it, don't watch it but let others make up their own mind.

A. Jackson

sbl
07-24-2008, 06:56 PM
Just a comment that Hollywood, the movie industry, makes movies. It's one of the few US industries that exports product and succeeds on merit. There's plenty of "normal" folks that do the off screen work while we mainly see the actors. These folks left "Podunk" and "East New WestPortland", and "Grinder's Switch" to go where they make movies.

When you laugh about or despise "Hollyweird" because of the people, their public life, or their politics, who else is going to make those movies?

ejazzyjeff
07-25-2008, 09:10 AM
Movies are made for one reason: Profit, they want to make more than what it cost to make the movie.

Also, no Hollyweird movie will be historically accurate because the average person is not going to know all the details of what happened at that particular time/event, so why bother going into details, or ensuring it is done correct. It like was Kevin O'Beirne posted about the civil war community is a small proportion of the population (300 million Americans, and maybe 30,000 Civil War reenactors; that's 0.01% of the population), not going to make a profit trying to satisfy 0.01% of the popluation.

sbl
07-25-2008, 09:54 AM
$$$$ Right you are. Hollywood, the industry, isn't a charity. Also you've heard the term:"God writes lousy theatre." (or movies.)


It isn't that people in the movie business are different, they're just different from you and me. No one wants to pay to watch me work.

OVI
07-25-2008, 11:14 AM
Good movies do one thing well...they entertain. That can mean a compelling story, great characters, great acting, action etc. Historical accuracy, especially to the level that our knowledge of the Civil War era recognizes, is always going to be secondary. That said, there is no excuse for poor costuming or blatant inaccuracies.

For example, the film Glory is a very watchable and entertaining Civil War movie. Sure, there is stuff wrong in it but that detracts very little from the overall experience.

On the other hand, Gods & Generals is a mess. Even if every detail was correct from a historical standpoint, the movie itself doesn't work because its so unfocused. If the movie was about Jackson, then why waste 1 hour on the battle of Fredricksburg which Jackson had little to do with? Where was the Valley Campaign, which to many was Jackson's finest?

I just happen to think that Maxwell became too engrossed with trying to tell too big of a story that he lost sight of what he was trying to convey as a story. When that happens you end up with nearly 4 hours of near unwatchable crap.

Kent Dorr - Ohio
"Devils Own Mess"

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-25-2008, 11:54 AM
I loved it , finally a movie with a Southern perspective, or at least some balance. Some historical mistakes sure, but at least unlike “Glory” , the troops attacked from the right direction. Ron should have included the Sharpsburg footage. For me, within reason, that kind of movie can never be too long.

“Ride with the Devil” is pretty good too.

sbl
07-25-2008, 12:31 PM
I wouldn't hitch my political wagon to a bad movie just because I agreed with the politics of it. I like Alexander Nevsky and Battleship Potemkin because they're good, not because I want "to keel Moose and Squirell."

Almost everyone loves Zulu with it's mistakes because it's good. I could say the same for The Patriot and Braveheart which are fantasies but fun to watch. GAG is just sad.

"Southern perspective.." Let's see, GWTW, Cold Mountain, Pharoh's Army, General Spanky, The Littlest Rebel, So Red The Rose, Operator 13, The Raid, Drums in the Deep South, The Little Sheperd of Kingdom Come, and Birth Of a Nation.

sbl
07-25-2008, 01:09 PM
...The Unconquered, Shenandoah, Yellow Neck, The Beguiled, Ironclads, The Rose and the Jackel, The Hunley, The Fastest Guitar Alive, and Uncivil Warbirds.

You should be thanking me for this list of Films with a Southern prespective.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-25-2008, 01:30 PM
...The Unconquered, Shenandoah, Yellow Neck, The Beguiled, Ironclads, The Rose and the Jackel, The Hunley, The Fastest Guitar Alive, and Uncivil Warbirds.

You should be thanking me for this list of Films with a Southern prespective.


Do you mean "The Undefeated" with John Wayne and Rock Hudson? Unconquered is Gary Cooper, circa 1947, French and Indian War. There may be another one , but I don't know about it.

Never heard of Yellow Neck, The Rose and the Jackel,The Fastest Guitar Alive, and Uncivil Warbirds. Beguiled is a chick flick.

There are some other good examples of balance, but they go back pre 1975 or so , Outlaw Josey Wales, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, and The Horse Soldiers.


Would the Gray Ghost or Johnny Yuma be on network television today?

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-25-2008, 01:36 PM
I wouldn't hitch my political wagon to a bad movie just because I agreed with the politics of it. I like Alexander Nevsky and Battleship Potemkin because they're good, not because I want "to keel Moose and Squirell."

Almost everyone loves Zulu with it's mistakes because it's good. I could say the same for The Patriot and Braveheart which are fantasies but fun to watch. GAG is just sad.

"Southern perspective.." Let's see, GWTW, Cold Mountain, Pharoh's Army, General Spanky, The Littlest Rebel, So Red The Rose, Operator 13, The Raid, Drums in the Deep South, The Little Sheperd of Kingdom Come, and Birth Of a Nation.


You left out "Southern Yankee " with Red Skelton.

I do like GWTW, The Littlest Rebel, The Raid, Drums in the Deep South, and Birth Of a Nation.


The Raid, ..early Richard Boone and Lee Marvin .

sbl
07-25-2008, 01:54 PM
Yep! "The Undefeated" with John Wayne and Rock Hudson. Also the 2-3 Twilight Zone episodes with CW/WBTS themes had Southern protagonists, Prisoner of Shark Island, and the Italian comedy Rebels on the Loose. Both Ronald Reagan and Roy Rogers made CW/WBTS westerns as Southern heroes.

sbl
07-25-2008, 01:56 PM
"You left out "Southern Yankee " with Red Skelton."

I did cause the hero is a Union Spy and the main Southerners in the movie are not positive charactors.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-25-2008, 02:04 PM
"You left out "Southern Yankee " with Red Skelton."

I did cause the hero is a Union Spy and the main Southerners in the movie are not positive charactors.


Good point, but it's a cute movie.

reb64
07-25-2008, 03:05 PM
Ironclads was not southern slanted, if anything they tried to make the south look like uncle tom characters. the side story was about slavery and saving the union from the spawn of satan.

tompritchett
07-25-2008, 03:22 PM
Ironclads was not southern slanted, if anything they tried to make the south look like uncle tom characters. the side story was about slavery and saving the union from the spawn of satan.

After all the "us" versus "them" fights over the Tampa flag, are we going to have another one over "slanted" movies?

sbl
07-25-2008, 05:35 PM
reb64 might be right about Ironclads. The one villian, Philip Casnoff of North and South, played Lt. Guilford as some kind of SS officer. (black Virginia facings on his coat collar and sleeves and mistreating the black charactor.) I thought the CSS Virginia's crew were good up-standing fellahs, and I remember the film for the noble and brave Confederates so I'm right.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-25-2008, 06:21 PM
reb64 might be right about Ironclads. The one villian, Philip Casnoff of North and South, played Lt. Guilford as some kind of SS officer. (black Virginia facings on his coat collar and sleeves and mistreating the black charactor.) I thought the CSS Virginia's crew were good up-standing fellahs, and I remember the film for the noble and brave Confederates so I'm right.


As I recall, one of the worst was Warren Oates as the crazed Confederate Cavalry officer in "Blue & Gray " slashing trapped federal wounded with his saber in the Wilderness.

Brian Wolle
07-25-2008, 09:13 PM
No idea who your Leesburg residents are Pvt Coleman. Gimme a clue...

wagen dawg
07-25-2008, 09:20 PM
New director..................

Better plot..........................

Use the footage they cut..(Sharpsburg and Frederickisburg.....)

Cut out the USO (Ted Turner) scene.................

Other than that and 100 other mistakes... nothing.

Tim

Che
07-25-2008, 09:56 PM
My view is that someone should write a new screenplay of the Red Badge of Courage and get it to the folks at HBO for a mini series. Wishful thinking.The Red Badge of Courage as a mini-series? Its just a novella of less than 200 pages. There is not enough material for two hours let along two nights or more on TV.

Bitter_Bierce
07-25-2008, 09:58 PM
"There are only two writers worse than Stephen Crane. Stephen Crane and Stephen Crane." - Ambrose Bierce

sbl
07-26-2008, 12:41 PM
The Raid, ..early Richard Boone and Lee Marvin .

I remember the Raiders as pretty desperate men, such as Lee Marvin, but heroic. The citizens of St. Albans as being mean spirited and cowardly.

Not to mention.....

The Last Outpost (1951) Ronald Reagan CSA officer

The Arizona Kid (1939) Roy Rogers, CSA scout

Rocky Mountain (1950) Errol Flynn CSA officer

Should I go on with CW/WBTS Hollywood films with sympathetic or heroic Confederate characters or stories? All the Confederate characters in Gettysburg were positive or sympathetic even the spy.

reb64
07-26-2008, 01:38 PM
. If the movie was about Jackson, then why waste 1 hour on the battle of Fredricksburg which Jackson had little to do with? Where was the Valley Campaign, which to many was Jackson's finest?

"Devils Own Mess"


Maybe more should be shown of the valley but Jackson did prevent Meade from caving in the Confederate flank at Fredricksburg. Meade had penetrated and Jackson had no small part in the victory. Perhaps a movie for each one of the battles would still not be satisfactory, but in any case the movie had to be edited down for viewing. I already said I wish the extra footage could be reintroduced. More of the Valley and heck I want to see Johnston, the best the South had.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-26-2008, 03:26 PM
I remember the Raiders as pretty desperate men, such as Lee Marvin, but heroic. The citizens of St. Albans as being mean spirited and cowardly.

Not to mention.....

The Last Outpost (1951) Ronald Reagan CSA officer

The Arizona Kid (1939) Roy Rogers, CSA scout

Rocky Mountain (1950) Errol Flynn CSA officer

Should I go on with CW/WBTS Hollywood films with sympathetic or heroic Confederate characters or stories? All the Confederate characters in Gettysburg were positive or sympathetic even the spy.


Thanks for the info . I agree , but those are all very early, pre PC movies. The latest one is 57 years ago.

Under more recents examples, probably worst Confederate bashing one is "Wild Wild West "

sbl
07-27-2008, 07:17 AM
You have to remember that Wild Wild West was science fiction, a precursor of "Steam Punk." Everything was exaggerated in the movie.

Now I've listed a bunch of recent movies and old movies with positive Confederate/Southern characters, or told from the Southern side of the story. The only one you seem to think is "fair" is GAG because, from what I get, there are two loyal slaves in the movie.

The "PC" issue was reversed in the older movies to get white Southern "a$$es in the seats" to watch the movies.

Doug Cooper
07-27-2008, 02:46 PM
About 3 weeks prior to the release of this King of Turkeys, some PR folks came all the way up to Boise ID to screen a portion of the movie at a church. My church heard about the screening and put it in our bulletin. So I show up and watched what appeared to be the most religious portions of the movie strung together in a trailer of sorts. In the room was a family movie theme lobbying firm from Hollywood, a member of the local Black History Museum, a bit actor in the film and about 100 curious audience. The object of course was to drum up support among Christians for what Maxwell knew was about to be a disaster. They billed it as the "wholesome movie Hollywood hates to make."

The astoninshing thing was that the movie was not finished...only 3 weeks prior to release. When I asked the presenter how long the movie would be, I got this answer:

Ron is trying to decide whether he will remove some material to make it less than 4 hours but may add some more. We will know more soon. Huh?

So 3 weeks later I stood there in front of a packed house at Boise's major theatre for the premier talking about battlefield preservation and how if this film moved you, please consider donating to CWPT or your local historical preservation group (we had found a CS cannon in Idaho). The audience was moved all right...moved to leave early shaking their heads. It was awful. So awful that Maxwell's plan to give a portion of the profits to CWPT (as payback for reenactors working for free) never materialized because there weren't any profits. But, to his great credit, he donated 500K anyway - must have been his own money. Maxwell really cares about preservation...he just can't make movies.

sbl
07-27-2008, 03:45 PM
"...They billed it as the "wholesome movie Hollywood hates to make.""

Doug,

They were framing GAG with a "family values voter" label as if church folks have to like the message over any any artistic merit.

Nice about Maxwell's $500K though.

Steve Blancard
07-28-2008, 09:38 AM
The GaG scenes at Fredericksburg had the Rappahannock river flowing in the wrong direction...

sbl
07-28-2008, 10:00 AM
I love that stuff. Glory had the battle going in the wrong direction.

The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming had the geese flying "south" in the wrong direction against a late afternoon sky in September on an US east coast island. It was filmed in California.

Whadda ya gonna do?

DColeman
07-28-2008, 11:11 AM
No idea who your Leesburg residents are Pvt Coleman. Gimme a clue...


Brian,
Robert Duvall, or Bobby as he is known round these parts, used to live in The Plains, VA Southwest of Middleburg. It is my understanding he now owns a farm in Leesburg VA where I live. Never seen him though.

40AcreMule
07-28-2008, 05:26 PM
I do like GWTW, The Littlest Rebel, The Raid, Drums in the Deep South, and Birth Of a Nation.You like the Birth of A Nation?

I don't think I've ever met any reenactor who has publically admitted to liking TBoaN.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-28-2008, 06:37 PM
You like the Birth of A Nation?

I don't think I've ever met any reenactor who has publically admitted to liking TBoaN.


It is recognized as one the finest pieces of cinematography ever filmed.
President Wilson said it was “History writ with lightning.“

40AcreMule
07-28-2008, 08:29 PM
It is recognized as one the finest pieces of cinematography ever filmed. For cinematography and technical innovations, yes. But only film students view it for that reason and that reason alone. The story is reprehensible garbage.

The Birth of a Nation is one of the most vile, racist films ever made and is notable today only for its technical innovations and the fact that it was the first feature length film ever made. Beyond that it is nothing but historical lies and Ku Klux Klan propaganda. The film caused protests and riots when it was released. Yes, it became very popular and made a lot of money, but it almost single-handled sent civil rights even farther into a corner it could not escape from.

There are scenes in the film that promote the usual black stereotypes such as the black politicians sitting in session at the capitol. barefoot and eating chicken and watermelon. Most blacks in the movie are portrayed as villains and rapists lusting for white women. Except for the faithful "Uncle Toms" of course who obediently bow and scrape to every white in the film. Keep in mind there are only a handful of real African-Americans in the movie, the most black roles went to whites in black face because few black actors could be induced to be in such a nauseating production.


President Wilson said it was “History writ with lightning.“ That quote is still affixed to prints of the film that are screened for film students who watch the movie for technique, not history.
Wilson was a racist retrograde who attempted to diminish both justice and democracy for American blacks—who were enjoying little of either to begin with at that period. Upon taking power in Washington, Wilson's cabinet brought Jim Crow to Washington. Before his arrival, DC's large black population had access to federal jobs and even worked with whites in largely integrated circumstances. Wilson and his cronies ended that bringing about such things as segregated public toilets, removing black Federal employees from their jobs, and preventing the DC police and fire departments from hiring any more blacks.

I'd go on, but I am totally disgusted.

sbl
07-28-2008, 08:48 PM
"I'd go on, but I am totally disgusted."

I actually read the Dixon's The Klansman! My chest became bruised from my jaw dropping at the hateful nonsense! The DVD copy I picked up has "Ride of the Valkyries" as a sound track for the "rescue!"

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-29-2008, 04:37 AM
"I'd go on, but I am totally disgusted."

I actually read the Dixon's The Klansman! My chest became bruised from my jaw dropping at the hateful nonsense! The DVD copy I picked up has "Ride of the Valkyries" as a sound track for the "rescue!"


Hey guys , lighten up . You put yourself in 1861 all the time .
Put yourself in 1915.

sbl
07-29-2008, 06:37 AM
"Hey guys , lighten up . You put yourself in 1861 all the time .
Put yourself in 1915."

The problem is that you sir seem to be putting 1861 now.

40AcreMule
07-29-2008, 07:01 PM
Hey guys , lighten up . You put yourself in 1861 all the time . Put yourself in 1915.As a person of color I deeply resent the "lighten up" comment. I don't live in 1961 or in 1915. I live in 2008.

You, however, obviously still live in slavery and Jim Crow days if you think a serious discussion on a film that negatively impacted civil rights is something that can just be brushed off with a thoughless comment.

CheeseBoxRaft
07-29-2008, 07:12 PM
Hey guys , lighten up . You put yourself in 1861 all the time . Put yourself in 1915. I take this to mean if you lived in 1915 then it would somehow be OK to openly hate blacks, force them into segrated toilets, and fire them from Federal employment. We must excuse all that bad behavior because, hey-hey!, it was 1915!

tompritchett
07-30-2008, 01:01 PM
Hey guys , lighten up . You put yourself in 1861 all the time .
Put yourself in 1915.

Yes, it would be appropriate to put ourselves in 1915 to understand the context of the film when judging it on its technical merit. The same could be said about the various propaganda films produced in Russia during the Stalin era and in Germany under Goebbel's direction. However, IMHO we should always judge the message of these films with our current set of values and morals.

5 th Alabama Infantry
07-30-2008, 05:42 PM
Yes, it would be appropriate to put ourselves in 1915 to understand the context of the film when judging it on its technical merit. The same could be said about the various propaganda films produced in Russia during the Stalin era and in Germany under Goebbel's direction. However, IMHO we should always judge the message of these films with our current set of values and morals.


Actually, we shouldn’t . I believe that it’s been called the concept of presentism. Judging the past by today’s standards is always a bad idea.

sbl
07-30-2008, 05:48 PM
Actually, we shouldn’t . I believe that it’s been called the concept of presentism. Judging the past by today’s standards is always a bad idea.


Presentism (literary and historical analysis)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)

"Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.

The Oxford English Dictionary gives the first citation for presentism in its historiographic sense from 1916, and the word may have been in use in this meaning as early as the 1870s. Historian David Hackett Fischer identifies presentism as a logical fallacy also known as the "fallacy of nunc pro tunc". He has written that the "classic example" of presentism was the so-called "Whig history", in which certain eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British historians wrote history in a way that used the past to validate their own political beliefs. This interpretation was presentist because it did not depict the past in objective historical context, but instead viewed history only through the lens of contemporary Whig beliefs. In this kind of approach, which emphasizes the relevance of history to the present, things which do not seem relevant receive little attention, resulting in a misleading portrayal of the past. "Whig history" or "whiggishness" are often used as synonyms for presentism, particularly when the historical depiction in question is teleological or triumphalist."