"Extreme Civil War Reenacting," a review. Part 1 of 2

[Julio C. Zangroniz]

Here's my take on the National Geographic special called “Extreme Civil War Reenacting” that debuted on Thursday, May 10.

I watched the program with bated breath, for I had a big “investment” in it (in time and energy, rather than money), because I was videotaped by National Geographic for over 26 hours at no less than five events in preparation for it –plus I had “invested” countless other hours in preparations for some of their videotaping sessions, such an all-day affair at my house in Maryland that included setting up TWO complete primitive camps and a cooking fire (for about five pounds of beef that I turned into jerky with a primitive cooking rack). I felt all of that unpaid work was strictly for the benefit of the hobby.

But much to my disappointment, not a single "foot" of all those personal efforts ended up in the final broadcast, so I apologize to those people I encouraged to watch the program with the hope they would see me discourse on a subject that has been near and dear to my heart since 1988.

On a very personal level, I feel totally disappointed, totally deceived and totally taken advantage of, but all that will pass. However, the next time a filmmaker approaches me for cooperation with some future project, more than likely I shall go back to my original policy on the matter: do NOT ever work with any Hollywood types. Ever.

All the same, I have been asked for my “professional” opinions on the “Extreme” effort, so here is my review:

In general, the documentary was well done, probably better than almost anything else that has been broadcast to date about reenactors and the hobby of Civil War reenacting, even though the documentary focused on perhaps the smallest segment of the reenacting community. But what we saw on screen showed respect, admiration and, well, love, for the subject.

Art Stone revealed to the world what most of us in the hobby already knew: He is a great person, a veritable Reenacting Treasure, and he rightfully became, for all intents and purposes, the central core of the National Geographic on-screen narrative.

The same can be said for other sages/treasures in it, like Joe Bordonaro, Johnny Lloyd and Jeff Grzelak.

Travis Brooks, the young recruit in the film, can feel justifiably proud of his camera presence --at the tender age of 16, when most other teenagers can barely articulate more than two very short cogent sentences. And his knowledge and dedication to the subject of history are truly admirable, though he is prone to some stumblings, as we will see in a few moments.

The story of Zack Forsythe was most moving, and well handled (perhaps "extremely" well handled) by the National Geographic filmmakers and editors --all the way from the beginning of the show, when Forsythe explains the reasons why he reenacts, to its emotional conclusion, as he visits a Florida cemetery to render honor to some of his fallen comrades in Afghanistan and Iran.

The production values of the documentary, for the most part, were quite good, though there were some very obvious and flagrant flaws.

I didn't like the name of the program including the word "extreme." Too needlessly sensationalistic, in my opinion. Before I had seen the program, it seemed like a sinister omen, of something that would focus on the more unappetizing aspects of reenacting, as many previous such shows have done.

There were far, far too many instances of “massive groups of lefties,” onscreen, because some portions of the footage had been evidently “flopped,” thus making everyone look left-handed.

Specific examples of this shortcoming:

Virtually *every single segment* of the program contained at least one scene of large masses of “left-handed” troops. As a filmmaker myself, this practice bothers me immensely, because I consider it akin to editorial laziness, to say nothing of the fact that it constitutes downright fraud on the unsuspecting viewer, because the filmmaker is showing as "truth" something that has been distorted.

One Confederate officer orders his troops to “fire!” at the start of Pickett’s Charge, I believe, by swinging down his sword, held with his LEFT hand. Was everyone else on that scene lefty, too? Probably. I couldn't tape the show, so I have only seen the original broadcast once.

Early in the segment on First Manassas, Johnny Lloyd appears carrying his officer’s sword on his LEFT hand. Twice! I didn’t have time to notice whether other reenactors around him had, likewise, turned into “lefties,” but I’d bet they looked that way, because I know Lloyd is righthanded. Those were more examples of needless “film flops.” A minute or two later, Lloyd is shown with his sword on his right hand and, finally, on his death scene, Lloyd falls to the ground, staring fixedly at the camera in a very tight closeup, with his sword by his right side... where he probably held it throughout the engagement. So why show him as a lefty at all? Editorial laziness, in my opinion.

Travis Brooks, who was featured throughout the documentary, always appears as a right-handed fellow, which he is, because I know him personally. Yet, immediately prior to his "death scene" he is carrying his musket as a left-handed soldier. Yet more laziness on the part of the filmmakers, for that was a staged scene that they could have filmed from a variety of angles, but evidently they didn't.

In 26 years of reenacting photography, I have NEVER witnessed a reenactor "switch hands" during an event, much less during one battle, whether he is carrying a sword or a musket. It may happen briefly, perhaps when the person needs to carry out some essential temporary duty, such as to wipe his brow, to write something down, to
take a drink of water, etc. Then they go back immediately to their regular grip.
>
>Part 2 follows...

[Julio C. Zangroniz]

"Extreme Reenacting," - Part 2--
>

Yet another serious shortcoming of the broadcast, in my opinion, was the inclination of most film producers to fall into the easy, but abominable, cliche of showing some reenactor anachronism when "the game is on."

For instance, the National Geographic producers felt the need to display one such major faux pas, a “casualty” on the ground, during an ongoing mock battle, holding up a modern digital camera to take pictures of the action. Most modern-day media types seem totally unable to resist displaying these types of clichés again and again and again. Enough already. If nothing else, that's not "extreme reenacting" but "extreme farby reenacting."

Travis Brooks rather foolishly starts one segment by claiming that he doesn’t use underwear while reenacting, stating something like: Most farmboys grew up without it. Naive and uninformed reasoning, at best, because it ignores the fact that when each and every one of those “farmboys” joined the Federal army, they were ISSUED underwear and they *had to use it* as part of a proper uniform, whether they were familiar with said practice or not.

In addition, not wearing underwear during a reenactment can be not only unsanitary, but also extremely uncomfortable and unsafe, due to severe chafing risks. Earlier, during the filming, I said the same thing about him wearing cavalry boots even though he is an infantryman. Later on in his brief reenacting career, while the documentary was still being filmed, those very boots led to Travis suffering some blisters... a decided disadvantage for an infantryman, who would have been on the march every single day of the war.

A bit later in the broadcast, Travis makes the claim that “sixty percent” of the Union soldiers grew up on a farm. Where did he find this statistic? It was never documented by him or by the producers. I find it extremely difficult to believe such was the case in the heavily industrialized North during the Civil War years, and therefore would like to see proper documentation for it.

And not to pile on on hapless Travis, but he is, at one point, shown loading powder into his musket barrel while holding up the cartridge about two inches above the end of the barrel, so we can actually see the grains floating in the wind. Try this practice outdoors and you may lose a third, or more, of the cartridge's powder --and your bullet will go downrange only a fraction of the intended distance. Then the enemy, loading their powder properly, more than likely would have killed Travis with the next volley. The regulations for loading are quite clear and specific, so why did they the producers have to show such a "crass violation" of the regulations? Was that "loading" scene the idea of the producers or of Travis? We don't know and it doesn't matter. Either way, it's wrong.

The “historical sequence” was strained throughout the broadcast. At some point, Travis exclaims something like if I can make it through First Manassas, I can be ready to fight in Gettysburg. But because all of the reenacting scenes of the documentary were filmed during 2011, the Gettysburg event had *already* been filmed (on the weekend of July 1-3) when First Manassas took place (the weekend of July 22-24).

I rather doubt the youngster would have been speculating about "being ready" after a battle in 1861 as preparation for another battle to take place almost *two years later.*

The editors of the documentary “fidgeted” with some scenes by showing them as part of the First Manassas reenactment, even though they had taken place, for example, at the Allaire School of the Soldier in New Jersey, back in May. One example: the chicken held by strings, cooking over an open campfire. I know this fact because I was present at the filming of that very scene, and I have my own pictures of that chicken and the cook. But neither the documentary's narrator nor anyone else ever acknowledged any of these “time-twisting” adventures. The documentary, then, provided the viewers with inaccurate information, in more than one ocassion.

Slavery, one of the chief causes of the war, was mentioned but once in the entire show, and almost in passing, by Art Stone, near the conclusion of the documentary. The producers could have expanded on the subject and its importance to both sides during the American Civil War when they showed scenes of Marvin Alonzo Greer, a dedicated and highly admired African American reenactor, who is seen portraying a slave in the Confederate camp during some of the First Manassas scenes. I myself photographed Marvin in that role, and the caption I sent a couple of newspapers reflects accurately the nature of his role there. My photo, and the caption, ran on page 13 of the September 2011 issue of The Civil War News.

Another highly significant topic for the hobby, but totally absent from this documentary: historical preservation efforts by the reenacting community.

The diversity amongst the "presenters" was woefully limited --strictly to white males. There were no females (other than two who had very minor roles as "residents" in a Florida farm visited by Federal troops, with hardly any speaking parts), or people of color, such as the aforementioned Marvin Alonzo Greer, who was mostly a "background" artist. Or foreigners (Irish, Germans, Canadians, English, French, Germans, Hispanics), all of whom played vital roles during the Civil War --and all of which have actual participants in today's reenacting ranks.

That diversity might be a good topic for the producers to consider as a follow-up "chapter," with a view towards 2013, when the single largest reenactment in the entire world is scheduled to take place in Gettysburg, PA, both in terms of participants and spectators.

Personally, I was very bothered by at least FIVE commercial interruptions during the one-hour show. It seems that the main purpose of having so many “breaks,” even though they were usually "only" 2-3 minutes long, was simply for National Geographic to be able to promote other of its upcoming programs, such as one about the Amish or the “Geo Bee 2012.” The “commercial breaks” should have been limited to, at most, two during the "main body" of the actual broadcast itself. The powers-that-be could have preceded the program with a longuish “commercial break,” because anyone interested in watching the show will sit through all the advertisements leading to it. Another alternative is for the producers to end the show “earlier,” so they can run more commercials in a row after its conclusion. But the actual narrative itself should run mostly uninterrupted --or that narrative, in my highly biased opinion, suffers considerably.

Again, in my opinion, the reenactors watching the show will stick through all the commercial breaks, because they basically want to see themselves on screen. But the public-at-large might use one of those "breaks" to go channel surfing, in the hope of finding something more interesting, particularly after they are pelted with yet one more "promo" about the Amish and... they might never come back to the original show.

Who were the filmmakers hoping to appeal to with this documentary production? The reenactors (a tiny, statistically infinitesimally small percentage of the overall population) or the non-reenacting majority? One friend, who is a non-reenactor, already forwarded to me the opinion that the filmmakers "seem to have missed the real story" by focusing on such a small segment of the reenacting community.

Finally, there were the usual scenes of muskets and/or cannons making totally phony, highly muffled "puffy" sounds when firing. This is a very common issue with every amateur film and even some “professional” ones that we see daily on the "History" or the "Military" channels and other such outlets. I, for one, expected better quality from National Geographic.

In spite of all these negative criticisms, the balance sheet remains, once again in my opinion, in the positive. At least we didn’t get “The Unfinished Civil War, Part Two.”

So onwards to bigger and, hopefully, better things.

Julio

[28thNY]

Hi Julio,

Very interesting review. I'm yet to watch the show myself and I'm sorry to hear that you were cut from the filming altogether given that you contributed significantly to the early phases of production.

Travis fell in with my company at Gettysburg last summer and, apparently, several of the reenactment shots were of him in line with my company. The project was originally put across to me as being something like "a year in the life of a reenactor" and I guess that could be considered correct given that it followed those four people through a year of reenacting.

Hey, I've just realised, it's on right now...

-Simon

[Bruce Schultz]

I'm eager to see it when it airs again, but dang if I can find a schedule for it.

[Craig L Barry]

Ditto...missed this one.

[fallstoomuch]

"Travis Brooks rather foolishly starts one segment by claiming that he doesn’t use underwear while reenacting, stating something like: Most farmboys grew up without it. Naive and uninformed reasoning, at best, because it ignores the fact that when each and every one of those “farmboys” joined the Federal army, they were ISSUED underwear and they *had to use it* as part of a proper uniform, whether they were familiar with said practice or not."
an article in the journal of the company of military historians about army drawers (vol XLVII no3 fall 95) states that "many a newly enlisted soldier recieved with his first suit of government clothing a strange looking pair of white flannel pantaloons" and goes on to say that veterans would tell them that they are for dress parade and that "most working men in hte first half of the nineteenth centery preferred long shirt tails to underdrawers" also they did not HAVE to wear them...they were issued things that they did not wear-great coats in warm weather-frock coats etc. I think arguments for wearing them and not wearing them both have strong points-and not wearing them is better than wearing modern underwear.
i think slavery wasnt a big topic in this show because they didnt have a reenactor who was portraying a slave...same with women-the focus was on 3 hardcore/authentic reenactors not the civil war.
my only complaint is that alot of it was filmed at an adjunct and not a hardcore event-on the other hand the cameras would have killed it. I thought it was good-focusing on a few hardcore reenactors and not really beating down the mainstream side. it could definitely have been more extreme but thats what you get...good guys decent show (and my son got to see his daddy on tv-a first for me and he thinks i am great now....when he is older he will realize it was all background stuf but for now i will use it!)

[Julio C. Zangroniz]

Bruce,
You would think that National Geographic would WANT to have people poised to watch the next re-run of this show. Yet, if you go to their "official" website, it almost takes a scientific mind to figure out when they will broadcast the show again. Why? Why do they make it so difficult to figure out when they will run the show again? It makes sense to TELL people EXACTLY when the show will run again, so those who are interested will tune in. So why do they NOT do it? God only knows.
For myself, I have to say that now that I have sat through the show twice, I rather doubt I will watch it again.
On the whole, I think this documentary was a positive thing for the reenacting community. Better than anything done up to date, in my opinion. I'm glad for whatever "influence," whatever "input" I had in the process, even though, obviously, none of my efforts ended up "on camera." Such is life.
--Julio

[Pvt_McIntire]

i think slavery wasnt a big topic in this show because they didnt have a reenactor who was portraying a slave...same with women-the focus was on 3 hardcore/authentic reenactors not the civil war.

Actually they did film and interview a woman reenactor for several days, including at Manassas. They chose to cut her out of the "final 3" reenactors they used. They also had an opportunity to interview a man portraying a slave and they chose not to. A big mistake as this would have made it a much more interesting program instead of concentrating on 3 white guys.

[David Einhorn]

Here are "clips" http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...-art-of-dying/
http://video.nationalgeographic.com/...-run-campaign/

[Cav. Guy]

I was unaware of this show up until just this weekend when I heard about it from other reenactors at an event, and I'm curious to see the entire thing. If anybody can find out when the next showing is, or locate it online, that would be awesome. I looked but as of yet, I am unable to find is anywhere online.