Posted by Champ on June 10, 1999 at 03:46:22:
In Reply to: Re: posted by Tom on June 09, 1999 at 19:12:34:
: Also what is the "true story?" Does getting every costume quibble correct make it historically accurate? So what if "Revolution" got "the look" right? What I am referring to is its overall view of the Revolutionary War which is completly botched. But that is just my opinion.
>Yes, that is your opinion ;-)
Its been awhile since I've seen it, but in what way did they botch it [other than make it slow paced]?
: History is subject to all sorts of different interpretations and opinions. How is a filmmaker supposed to shuffle through that minefield?
>That is why they hire consultants & researchers, though with some films I wonder why?
: I recently read an article in the The New York Times editorial page written by an African American historian. This historian was writing about his trip to Gettysburg where he felt strangly unwelcome despite the fact he was the descendent of leaders of the underground railway, runaway Maryland slaves, and a veteran of Valley Forge. He looked upon the spot where Brig. General Armistead fell. Now most white Southerners feel a surge of pride at this spot; but this black American admits he "softly cursed his slavery spreading soul" as well as that of a Colonel Aiken, a South Carolinian who held one of this man's ancestors in bondage, and had also fought at Gettysburg.
>Hmmm, interesting since there are as many Union monuments as Confederate [if not more]...
One of my own ancestors fought at Culp's Hill, and was crippled for life there, fighting in the famous "Stonewall Brigade", which included Black Confederate Freedmen under arms!
: Now what if this historian was to write a screenplay for a movie on Gettysburg? What would be the 'true story" to him? Would it be heroic Southern boys fighting for their "rats?" Or would it portray Lee's legendary ANV as something akin to a 19th century version of the Waffen SS? Whose "true story" would it be?
>Wasnt that the purpose of "Glory"? He could do what ever he wants, just be true to the historical record, thats all I ask [its all there, if you want to take the time to shift thru it, and not be lazy & accept at face value the PC version -- "ALL Southerners were slaveholders & evil"]...
And there is NO comparison between Lee's ANV & the SS, though the same cant be said about ol' "Marchin' Through Georgia" [Sherman] or others of his ilk, like Turchin.
Show me the same atrocities committed by Lee's ANV that the SS committed?
And why dont they make a picture about the thousands of Blacks that served in Confederate ranks as soldiers [& not just ditch diggers]? Because it isnt politicaly correct.
The difference between the Federal Army & the Confederate Army was that the CSA did have interracial units [even though Richmond forbidded it], where as the Federals segregated their units [with white leadership]. It took until 'Nam for them to have a completely interracial make-up in the armed forces.
A movie about the 34th TX Cavalry [white, black & hispanic] would be interesting, or even better about Cherokee general Stand Watie.
I know of one picture in production ["the Angel of Maryes Heights"] that will portray the racial make-up of the Confederate army realisticly, as will the John Hunt Morgan picture I'm working on as chief historical consultant [incidently, I have the roster of a company of free Blacks who rode as members of the 6th KY Cavalry, and we know of more in other companies!].
Look, films will always take liberties with history, but the point is there are so many good & interesting stories out there that they dont have to stray too far from what really happened & keep it interesting.
Somehow I think we've strayed from the original intent of this board [LOTM & 18th century] ;-)
Personaly, I'd love to see a big budget film done about Roger's Rangers, now theirs is a story that would keep you riveted to the screen & not have to stray from history to tell a good story either!
[there, now we're back to the intent of the board ;-) ]...
Post a Followup