Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

[gilham]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

oops wrong post

[L. E. Prillaman]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

There is an old PBS short based on the Mart Twain short story called "A Private History Of A Campaign That Failed." It is pre-war. It is about young Samuel Clemmens (Twain) and his brother joining up with other young men in Missouri and forming a Confederate militia. I think it was done in '79 or something thereabouts. Anyhoo, it is my favorite civil war era film. I know nothing about the production of this film, but the costuming is great, the dialogue is WONDERFUL and its Twain, so of course sometimes hilarious. I am willing to bet you could find it on Amazon. If you see this film, I promise you will not regret it. Hope everyone is gearing up to have a great holiday season.

Lars E. Prillaman
Liberty Rifles

[Abrams]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

While these are not movies per-say, I have watched them repeatedly and learned a lot from them. They are actually Battlefield Guides I reckon, but parts anyway can be watched like a movie, and I like to see the ebb and flow of the troop movements.

http://www.travelbrains.com/

Previews of the movie/CDRoM : http://www.travelbrains.com/Destinat...urgAnime2.html

As to movies, it was the movies Gettysburg and Gods and Generals that re-awakened my interest in the Civil War, so don't discount those two movies too quickly.

For movies about civilian life then, I had not seen Gone With the Wind mentioned. Mom watches this movie annually, and I catch it occasionally with her. While I am sure Hollywood had its influences, it's still a decent flick.

[DJCasey]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

I think there are Civil War movies that are great movies. However, great from a cimematic standpoint, not historical. Glory is a great movie, well acted and directed. It won several Academy Awards. Historically accurate? Hell no. Bad costumes and botched historical record, but that doesn't stop great performances and a compelling (although fabricated) story. It is still one of my favorite movies, Civil War themed or not.

[ajroscoe]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

I think everyone will agree that any movie based on history is going to be a balancing act between the authentic image of the past and a story that captivates the reader. The movies aren't made for those of us who watch just to see whether or not that little thing was done right. Watching a film like Glory, arguably the best of all the Civil War films, there are many inaccuracies apparent. Hell, even the last scene of the attack where the Maj., Sgt. Maj., and color bearer all get killed (all characters that lived in real life) bears witness to the fact the movie is there to make money. If the company producing it can't get people to watch it, there is no movie. That being said, has anyone heard about the movie on the 5th New York that is supposed to be coming out? I think it is called the Red Legged Devils.

[nastt]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

I thought the Crater Battle Scene in "Cold Mountain" was pretty real, but far as a CW Movie that the "tops" is not out yet. Wicked Spring was a winner too, good personal experience flick and authentic gear.

[mslaird]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

I thought the Crater Battle Scene in "Cold Mountain" was pretty real, but far as a CW Movie that the "tops" is not out yet. Wicked Spring was a winner too, good personal experience flick and authentic gear.

I agree completely. I thought it was pretty well done too. The scenes in the hospital were good and the depiction of the nature of late war civilian life was pretty good. All in all, not bad for a story based on Homer's Oddysee set in 1865.

[fahtz]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

This thread begs the questions, on what grounds do you think a movie of our period is good? "Ride with the Devil" is nothing more than a hollywood day dream. The headgear is HORRIBLE for the most part. Primes example, the bloody bill character. Looks like a typical leather kepi you can pick up at a biker shop to me. The other hats could pas the squint rule, and some of them are good. But the majority of the hats are horrible. Let's talk about Quantrail...how ridiculous was that character? I will give you guys that for the most part the clothing looked alright. The acting was par at best, the locations were killer (as they were right around KC), the story line was a bit boring. Is this THE big budget version of the war in Missouri? I hate to say it but it is. A few months back KCPT and Wide Awake Films came out with a documentary on the border war between Kansas and Missouri. IF you want a well researched piece on what the war around here was really about. Pick it up and give it a look.

[Old Reb]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

If Mitch gives a movie the thumbs down, I certainly will not go see it. I have heard him speak in person at several symposiums held at the Black Smoke BBQ and know that he speaks as one that has spent many years getting an education in theater arts, thus an expert and a barrier of the Cup of Phil.

[DJCasey]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

Hell, even the last scene of the attack where the Maj., Sgt. Maj., and color bearer all get killed (all characters that lived in real life) bears witness to the fact the movie is there to make money.

The Major in the movie (Cabot Forbes, played by Cary Elwes) did not exist in real life. The two names, Cabot and Forbes, are composite of the names of two of Shaw's real friends. The real major or the 54th was Edward Hallowell, who survived the battle and went on to command the regiment for most of its existance. Most of the characters in Glory were composites of real peope. In fact, of those depicted in the regiment, Shaw is the only historical figure. The movie took some flack for this when it first came out. People were upset that the first movie about a black regiment focused souly on its white comander when there were a scores of interesting (and historical) African Americans that the movie could have depicted. Also, Denzel Washington's oscar winning whipping scene never happend and to a person that never would have been in the 54th (a recent runaway). I wrote a paper on this in college and could go on and on, yet I still love this movie! The spirit is still there.

[Vicksburg Dave]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

"You mean "Sabres of Shame", the movie the Doss brothers did about 5 years ago at the West Point reenactment. I think the real name is "Sabres of Glory", but it is terrible."

Yes, that is the one. I would love to find a copy. It's classic. lol

[reddcorp]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

My vote goes to "Ride with the Devil" as best all-around depiction of the Kansas-Missouri grudge war. Costumery was excellent, language/dialog was superb, the plot was good and Jewel was a bonus.
IMHO "Wicked Spring", aside from the spot-on costumery, was not very impressive.
Now for the worst: The John Boy Walton version of "The Red Badge of Courage".

Andy Redd

[JacobReichwein]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

The only thing negative about Cold Mountain is the COMPLETELY OBVIOUS rubber guns.

[stx]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

There was a mini series back in 1982(?) called the Blue and the Grey. It has a few big names, Stacey Keatch, Rip Torn. In terms of accuracy? They pump out a lot of facts every now and a then. The uniforms are horendous, like a cross between costume shop and mainsteam gear. The cannon are obviously fake, and there's even a scene in which Lincoln is testing a Spencer and a white truck goes by in the background. With all of this said, I liked it. It does have some acuracy to it, it makes a lot of stretches though and has some unrealistic circumstances, but overall it's entertaining. Sometimes bad movies are fun to watch. I got it at Wal-Mart for 10 bucks and I've gotten good use out of it.

[mtvernon]

Re: Best Civil War films (or rather, the lack thereof)...

I am astounded that no one has as yet brought to your attention "Ride With The Devil,"
directed by Ang Lee and starring Toby McGuire and Jewel. This is a superb film with
great period costuming and decent dialogue.

Thank you. I was going to add this if no one else did. I really like Glory, but it's all grinding up to a big rah-rah moment that, while powerful, feels spoon-fed. I know some here have a problem with Ride With the Devil, but pound for pound it's the one CW movie that isn't black and white in terms of Blue/Gray, pro/anti slavery, but rather has a little more complex view of the way it really was, and how folks back then, and in Missouri, found themselves in the middle of a fight that was more about property being invaded and retribution than the goals and aspirations of the Confederacy per se. I can't get enough of that movie.

World War II has The Thin Red Line

Friend, if you're one of the seemingly few people who liked this (like me), I think you'll enjoy Ride With the Devil. No movie is going to likely measure up to the standards those here adhere to, but one must remember that Hollywood is a business, and as such will always take the short path to the cash. With that perspective, 'good enough' is a credo not likely to change. Given that reality, one must try to see through that to what is worthwhile. I think the aforementioned film has much to recommend it in this genre or any other.

One final note: can we all get on the same page about the expression 'beg the question'? This phrase does not mean, "One must ask...". It's a philosophical term that means something has been stated whose basic premise has yet to be been proven. The best example of this I could find in 10 seconds was from http://begthequestion.info/. Here's an example of a statement that 'begs the question':

"I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

I'm stating this because it has started creeping into common usage in a way that is wrong, and it's not only driving me nuts but takes away from clarity in one's writing. As this is a writing-based venue, I thought it appropriate to point this out. The rule is weird, and it's understandable how someone could get this wrong, but hey, this is an educational forum, ain't it?

Respectfully,