Posted on 02/03/2002 2:25:32 AM PST by bleudevil
Edited on 05/07/2004 6:26:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
Movies failed to get Civil War, black-white relations right.
Enduring fans of filmdom's Gone With the Wind may be disappointed to learn, in reading The Reel Civil War, that the lovely actress who so convincingly portrayed ultimate Southern belle Scarlett O'Hara knew next to nothing about the history and culture of the American South.
(Excerpt) Read more at indystar.com ...
When you have a discussion at home do you drag out your books and try to make your guests read them instead of discussing things in your own words? This is ridiculous.
Walt
Sam Waterston may not have been the best Lincoln, but Lincoln was the best Sam Waterston. In other words, you couldn't follow Waterston's career without thinking that at some point he'd have to play Lincoln, even if what you got wasn't the best portrayal of the real or historical Lincoln.
I don't remember if Mary Tyler Moore was a good Mary Todd Lincoln. I think someone may have gotten carried away with the 3 name thing.
"Glory," "Gettysburg," and "Andersonville" are impressive and shock us at times that we are watching the real thing. But a future generation might make some of the same criticisms that we make of the earlier films, as art, technology and historical attitudes develop.
One thing that was interesting about "Glory" was that so much was seen through African-American eyes. Those parts were fresher than the Matthew Broderick parts.
"Gettysburg" was impressive because in a lot of ways it went against the fashionable currents of our day. What made the movie stand out was precisely that it linked to earlier attitudes, and ways of living, thinking and storytelling, rather than to what Hollywood is producing now. In other words, recovering some of the actual thinking and feeling of the time and the texture of the period can lead to something new and striking, because it is so different from the contemporary film product.
What might be interesting is a comparison of GWTW with "The Birth of a Nation." Just as we've consigned GWTW's depiction of history to the scrap heap of period fiction, GWTW must have been a great step forward from TBOAN. In part because of the technology and production values, but also because the characters were more rounded out and less two-dimensional. In 1939 what strikes us as old fashioned, romantic and contrived may have had the shock of the new and punch of the real. Nice site at www.franklymydear.com.
"Ride with the Devil" a theoretically fascinating, though practically boring look at the Missouri campaigns. Interesting details, epic sweep, but too long.
These are all recognizable "types" who, as in all decent writing, are familiar to us since we've all known folks like them. Folks of all colors by the way. This is what is so stupid and awful about this imbecilic idea that only a person from a group can create or understand art about members of that group. I mean, if that's the case, why bother? What could art then teach us that we don't already know?
My mother once told me that reading novels is a way to find out what life is like without having to go through all the sh*t yourself. (Mom used different words, but that was the gist.) It certainly beats listening to some of these modern critics, but they are usefull for finding out what insanity is like without having to go nuts yourself.
One further praise for the movie, GWTW has the very best costumes of any movie based on a book I've ever seen. I don't know a single woman who's seen it who doesn't think the clothes in the film are EXACTLY like the dresses, hats, etc. in the story, even what the outfits are not described in detail. We gals love that!
Regards,
Jessica
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.