The Men Who Built America

This morning, on my daily run down the Sunset Strip in Hollywood, I noticed a new billboard a few blocks east of the Whiskey-a-Go-Go. As I ran by, I thought to myself...is the History Channel going to take a stab at history? Yes indeed...move over Pawn Stars and Swamp People, the History Channel is gearing up to air an all-new series: The Men Who Built America. According to the History Channel website, this series will chronicle the lives of a handful of industrial tycoons - John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford and J.P. Morgan - as they rise from obscurity to their positions as the world's most powerful and influential men, "building" America into a post Civil War superpower as they go along...and affecting every single person in the world as they do it.

I have made no secret about my disappointment with the directions the History Channel has gone over the years. I have attempted to engage them in a programming discussion via Twitter to no avail, and I have written an unanswered call to action right HERE on Cosmic America. I guess their programming developer(s) do not really care what this historian thinks. Fair enough - lots of people don't care what I think.

I am very interested how they handle this one. They have a real opportunity - in prime time - to develop the complexities of the men and the era through the experiences of some of those who stood at the top of the industrial mountain. I am hoping they do not travel down the easy and all-too-familiar road to hagiography. Captains of industry were heroes of enterprise to be sure and greatly admired by many. But they were humans, capable of errors in judgment and possessing tragic flaws. We'll see how the history unfolds when the series airs But hey - if this show doesn't work out they could always try out a few other ideas. Dear History Channel, if you please, may I offer a trio of suggestions:



 

or better still...



 

or if you really want to hit home...

 



 

I know, I know. I am having fun at the poor History Channel's expense before I have even seen their program. But you have to admit, they make it pretty easy. And historically speaking (yes, pun intended) their attempts on real history have been pretty weak in the past. But in the spirit of hope, I will not really pass judgement on this show until I have had a chance to sit down and see what they come up with. Then of course, the gloves come off.

K

 

What Happened to the History on the History Channel?

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I remember it well...the day way back in 1995 when I learned that A&E Networks were going to launch the History Channel. I was about as excited as a history guy could be. Back in those days, they actually had some shows that dealt with history. Not the deeply analytical kind you can find rocketing out of the hallowed halls of academia, but history nonetheless.

What happened? Heading over to the History Channel website, here is what I see. Swamp People, Full Metal Jousting, Pawn Stars, Pickers, Restorers, and a lot of other "reality" type shows (appealing to the lowest common denominator) that deal more with people who "wrastle" alligators than with any topics of historical interest. And for the cherry on top - you can always watch America's favorite insipid pinhead, Larry the Cable Guy. His show...Only in America features moose kissing and various other asinine activities that apparently only take place here in the good 'ole US of A. No wonder the rest of the world thinks we are idiots.

I challenge the History Channel to air something of historical value. It doesn't have to be heavy-handed academics - just history. Or...maybe it would just be better if you changed your name to something else.

Peace,

Keith

Tony and Ridley Scott's Gettysburg: The History Channel Gets Gritty

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So I have finally, finally sat down and watched the latest film on the Battle of Gettysburg. Aired by the History Channel way back in May, this film combines traditional narration with some recreations meant to stir the soul. Filmmakers Tony and Ridley Scott promised realistic Civil War combat - and they delivered. This multi-part film following several individuals through three days of battle offers all the blood spewing, bone splintering, skull splitting action that anyone could handle. What's more, viewers can (with the help of computer animation) follow bullets as they speed through the air to do their grim work, witness cannon shot and shell ripping bodies to pieces, and even whisk along electronically with the marvel of telegraph messages. Wow! How about that!!!

Adding credibility to the mix, a coterie of first-rate historians add their two cents to the narration. Edward Ayers, Peter Carmichael, and James McPherson are among the group of scholars weighing in on the many aspects of the battle.

I have checked out the reviews on Gettysburg, and I have turned up just about what one might expect: a host of bloggers picking nits. The biggest complaints: Hardee hats pinned on the wrong side, poured concrete walls in the 19th century, rectangular shaped ANV battle flags - the list goes on, and I will not bore you with the rest.

To be honest, none of those things troubles me in the least - I mean....it's a movie people. Get over it. But as this film has grander didactic purposes (as professed by the History Channel), there is one kinda big thing that does bother me.

The notion of "turning point" hangs over this film like an ominous cloud - and this is a point that should indeed be reckoned with. Variously interspersed throughout the film, one gathers that the war - the whole whoopdeedoo - is in the hands of those who make the crucial decisions here on these Pennsylvania fields. And this - both explicitly and implicitly - is ultimately the analytical thrust of Gettysburg.

So while the film is spectacularly successful in the blood and guts department, I give it a C- for analysis. Suggesting that the war hinged on this one battle is nothing more than a case of reading history knowing full well what happened next. In July 1863, while Rebels were devastated by defeat as much as Yankees were elated by victory, the war had yet to be won or lost.

Gettysburg fits neatly into what one could call an "Appomattox Syndrome." It is an easy trap to spring - knowing, as we do, that the Army of Northern Virginia never again boasted pre-Gettysburg victories like those at Fredericksburg or Chancellorsville. A steady trajectory toward certain Confederate defeat, then, is what modern viewers expect after July's cinematic fortunes smile on the Union.

It is not, however, what the Confederates expected. There were many more bright spots for the Rebels after the Battle of Gettysburg - and most expected independence would come sooner or later - why else would they fight on for two more years? After all, the (very vocal) war-weary in the North were growing more and more tired of the incessant grind of war...and the casualty lists mounted by the day.

So let's not think that Gettysburg settled things once and for all - those who fought there certainly didn't.

Peace,

Keith

PS - I do not own a TV...and find about 99% of what airs to be completely useless. Thus, I turn to Youtube or streaming Netflix if I absolutely must see something. In the case of Gettysburg, I found it in several parts HERE. Also - I love what they did with Dan Sickles. Yes...I think he was devious too. He is one of my favorite Civil War characters.

Blood and Guts and Grit

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I am sure many of you are highly anticipating the premiere of Tony and Ridley Scott's Gettysburg on the History Channel this Memorial Day. I have learned over the years not to expect much from Civil War films in terms of action sequences. The one exception is Glory, which looked pretty realistic...at least as realistic as I could ever possibly imagine, having read soldiers' letters and such. Maybe Cold Mountain....but the movie was so bad that I was distracted by the story to get much out of anything having to do with the war

The usual depiction of battle goes something like this - thousands of well-fed soldiers (with nice uniforms and good teeth) marching valiantly to their fate, clutching their chests when they fall, or catapulted into the air by shells exploding on the ground (as opposed to in the air, which is how things really happened).

It may seem somewhat perverse to be disappointed by the lack of realism in such scenes of war. Oh sure, every movie tends to have the obligatory amputation scene, with the victim screaming in agony as his wounded limb is sawed off. But if you have had a chance to get a look at some of the post-battle photographs from Antietam or Gettysburg, you will notice nothing of war is pretty - especially the twisted disemboweled bodies of soldiers killed in action. This is the realism that seems missing from so many Civil War films.

But that is not all. I have yet to see a Civil War film where the soldiers appear in any way anxious about their potential - and altogether probable fate. Raw emotion for the most part has alluded the actors (or the directors) in films like Gods and Generals and Gettysburg (the one with Martin Sheen). I would expect to see some men entirely terrified, or nervous, or at least clenching their teeth. Sure, you will see a guy or two run away from eminent danger, but that is not what I really mean. I want to look into an actors face and feel that he is experiencing combat of the most wretched sort. We need to look past the drums and bugles and the whoops and huzzahs. War sucks.

This feeling has been captured pretty damn well through the recent releases of various WWII miniseries. Both Band of Brothers and The Pacific, at least to me, convey a sense that war really is Hell. It is dirty, it is painful, it is agonizing, it is tormenting, it is chaotic, it is - well, gritty. I have never personally experienced combat. But I have read enough soldiers' accounts and interviewed enough veterans to know that fun was not had by all - or even any for that matter.

So let's just see how this version of "Gettysburg brought to the screen" goes - I will be sure to throw in my two cents shortly.

Peace,
Keith