Tweet
Re: Best Civil War TV (or rather, the lack thereof as well)...
Some of History Channel's efforts have been laudable, but often they fall short of where they could be. "Civil War Journal" was good in its day, but today I tend to call it, "Gettysburg Journal" because the show placed way too much emphasis on that one battle; I think at one time I counted that they had at least four or five whole episodes devoted to the battle, and many other episodes (such as the biographical ones) devoted considerable air time to Gettysburg. I still think the series' Season 1 episodes on battle flags and Zouaves are the best done for that series.
History Channel's "Civil War Combat" series had some good moments, but in general I have a problem with most documentaries that rely almost exclusively on reenactors to show historical subjects. The series's episodes that dealt with battles that I knew a fair amount about often tended to have a number of gross historical errors, in addition to some of the goofy stuff the reenactors were doing. Don't get me wrong on the reenactors in this series: They were considerably better than most reenactors shown in documentaries, but they were sitll, well, reenactors. It's much better to use reenators as only occasional window dressing when showing historical subjects. As a contrast, Discovery Networks's "Twentieth Century Battlefields" (currently shown on the Military Channel) gives very good virtual tours of 20th Century battlefields, intercut with archival footage and photos, and a small bit in each episode where one of the hosts goes to a British Army training camp to try something out to gain improved insight into what the soldiers experienced. Why this approach isn't done more often for Civil War topics is uknown to me.
History Channel's (?) series "Battlefield Detectives" had a very good (I thought) episode on the battle of Antietam about four years ago.
Most dramatic treatments of the Civil War done on TV may be very entertaining ("North and South Book II") but are usually wildly bad in terms of historical accuracy, logical storytelling, and accuracy of material kit. With "N&S II" filmed in the mid-1980s, the material kit was moderate at best, and the costumes worn by the primary actors were terrible. The series had very little semblance to John Jakes's novel on which it was based ("Love and War"), and was generally goofy but with good-looking women. For example, the TV series' transformation of the character Billy Hazard (played by Parker Stevenson of the "Hardy Boys") from his job (in the book) of being part of Hermann Haupt's Military Railroad Construction Corps to, in the TV show, being a company commander of US Sharpshooters who goes into battle with a musket in his hand and a cute drummer boy at his side was... .well, we won't go there. Wayne Newton as the sadistic commandant of Libby Prison? Puh-leeze.....
I have to laugh uproariously at the series, "Blue and Gray"; it's just plain bad all the way around, from plausibility, to acting, to wildly inaccurate kit and costumes and tactics used (the 20-man depiction of the battle of the Wilderness is just plain hilarious, and it's Vietnam-style guerrilla-fighting tactics left me speechless when I saw it).
Some of History Channel's efforts have been laudable, but often they fall short of where they could be. "Civil War Journal" was good in its day, but today I tend to call it, "Gettysburg Journal" because the show placed way too much emphasis on that one battle; I think at one time I counted that they had at least four or five whole episodes devoted to the battle, and many other episodes (such as the biographical ones) devoted considerable air time to Gettysburg. I still think the series' Season 1 episodes on battle flags and Zouaves are the best done for that series.
History Channel's "Civil War Combat" series had some good moments, but in general I have a problem with most documentaries that rely almost exclusively on reenactors to show historical subjects. The series's episodes that dealt with battles that I knew a fair amount about often tended to have a number of gross historical errors, in addition to some of the goofy stuff the reenactors were doing. Don't get me wrong on the reenactors in this series: They were considerably better than most reenactors shown in documentaries, but they were sitll, well, reenactors. It's much better to use reenators as only occasional window dressing when showing historical subjects. As a contrast, Discovery Networks's "Twentieth Century Battlefields" (currently shown on the Military Channel) gives very good virtual tours of 20th Century battlefields, intercut with archival footage and photos, and a small bit in each episode where one of the hosts goes to a British Army training camp to try something out to gain improved insight into what the soldiers experienced. Why this approach isn't done more often for Civil War topics is uknown to me.
History Channel's (?) series "Battlefield Detectives" had a very good (I thought) episode on the battle of Antietam about four years ago.
Most dramatic treatments of the Civil War done on TV may be very entertaining ("North and South Book II") but are usually wildly bad in terms of historical accuracy, logical storytelling, and accuracy of material kit. With "N&S II" filmed in the mid-1980s, the material kit was moderate at best, and the costumes worn by the primary actors were terrible. The series had very little semblance to John Jakes's novel on which it was based ("Love and War"), and was generally goofy but with good-looking women. For example, the TV series' transformation of the character Billy Hazard (played by Parker Stevenson of the "Hardy Boys") from his job (in the book) of being part of Hermann Haupt's Military Railroad Construction Corps to, in the TV show, being a company commander of US Sharpshooters who goes into battle with a musket in his hand and a cute drummer boy at his side was... .well, we won't go there. Wayne Newton as the sadistic commandant of Libby Prison? Puh-leeze.....
I have to laugh uproariously at the series, "Blue and Gray"; it's just plain bad all the way around, from plausibility, to acting, to wildly inaccurate kit and costumes and tactics used (the 20-man depiction of the battle of the Wilderness is just plain hilarious, and it's Vietnam-style guerrilla-fighting tactics left me speechless when I saw it).
Comment