Historians - Stop It

Time to vent. I have no need to name names - you've read the reviews and you know who they are. But I swear if I read one more historian's erudite treatise attacking Spielberg's Lincoln for not delivering a comprehensive history of the abolition movement I am going to light myself on fire and jump out a window into oncoming traffic. So instead of doing that I think I will take a long winter's nap. It is an activity far less dangerous and far more interesting. Here's an idea for all scholars of history, American studies, or anyone else who feels a burning desire to weigh in on this film. Why not write about what Lincoln does do instead of what it doesn't .
Okay here I go...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wake me up when this is all over.

K

Lincoln - Coming to a Theater Near You

[caption id="attachment_3467" align="alignleft" width="332" caption="Lincoln billboard on Hollywood Blvd."][/caption]

I wish I could remember where I read this, but not long ago, Steven Spielberg made the somewhat presumptuous announcement that he would not release Lincoln until after the 2012 election - so as not to affect the outcome with a political drama set during a very divisive period of our history. Who knows, maybe he was right. Films do have a powerful effect on the public.

At any rate, the election is over and Lincoln is about to hit the theaters. I am personally bracing myself for the onslaught of newly minted Lincoln experts on Twitter and Facebook who will most certainly hold forth on the 16th president based solely on what they see in this movie.

For those of you who might be tempted to walk down this road, I would like to remind you of something else Spielberg said about this film, and about film as history in general. This medium can illustrate only a sliver of of Lincoln's or anyone's world. What we will see will be very specific and will not touch on every historical base. I am interested primarily in what Spielberg has chosen to tell us about the man and the issues with which he contended. It will reveal a great deal about historical memory in the 21st century as it reflects on the 19th. And for the record - judging by the previews, Daniel Day-Lewis will do a bang-up job.


K

The Way Around to the Right: Lee and Longstreet in the Film, Gettysburg

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I write often about Ron Maxwell's 1993 film, Gettysburg. Based on Michael Shaara's novel, Killer Angels, the story follows the paths of a number of Confederate and Union commanders as they fight it out for three days in Southern Pennsylvania. My interest in the film is twofold. One, I am fascinated by the power of the medium to act as teacher - establishing for many the final word on what actually happened, what should have happened, who deserves blame for defeat and praise for victory. You can read an example of my previous writing on this subject HERE. Second, I never get enough of how utterly ridiculous various recreations of historical actors' persona and appearance can be when translated to the screen. HERE is a healthy dose of good-natured ribbing leveled at the Gettysburg make-up team.

Today I speak of the former fascination: specifically, the contention in the film between Robert E. Lee and his senior commander, James Longstreet. From the onset of the engagement, Longstreet argues that Lee should maneuver his army around the Federal right, get between the Union army and Washington City, and draw the Yankees into a fight on ground of their choosing.

Seems simple enough - and if you ignore everything that was going on, it even makes sense. The problem is that there were a number of factors that the film (not to mention Longstreet) gives either short shrift or does not consider at all. First, The fight had commenced in the Confederates' favor - it is a bad idea to disengage when victory is within an army's grasp (keep in mind...Lee left his crystal ball back in Virginia, so he had no idea what was coming next) Second, who was going to screen any movement around the entire Federal army? The Union II, V, and XII corps were still on the move on July 1 - the exact location unknown. Further, Jeb Stuart's Confederate cavalry was missing in action and not available for screening duty anyway. Third, Lee's army had wagons trains and a supply line stretching all the way back to South Mountain. What would he have done with that? The Rebels attacked initially from the north, Longstreet's proposed movement would have cut loose a vital part of the Army of Northern Virginia.

These points (admittedly offered with only brief explanation) have been debated and clarified in any number of excellent treatments on the battle (Coddington and Pfanz come immediately to mind). But my point is not to prove Longstreet wrong or Lee right, but to offer an example of a film persuading a viewing public without the consideration of analysis.

Where did the modern popular Pete Longstreet appeal come from, anyway? Back in the 1880s, Longstreet got in a lot of hot water with the Confederate unreconstructed types for voicing his Gettysburg beef with Lee in print. A great controversy ensued leaving Longstreet something of a hated figure in the South. Instead of people jumping on Old Pete's bandwagon and agreeing that Lee should have gone along with his lieutenant's voice of reason, they condemned him for failing to execute Lee's plan as ordered. In this scenario, Longstreet lost the battle...and the war.

Well, Longstreet may have moped around the battlefield for a few days in July, but solely to blame one man for defeat is something a shade more than problematic. But Longstreet, despite his lot as Confederate pariah in the decades following the war, need not have worried too much about his reputation in the long run. Thanks to Shaara and Maxwell, there has been a great resurgence in Longstreetists, who...owing at least partly to his projection on a bigger than life screen, can see as clear as day that Longstreet was the wiser of the two commanders. His disciples number much greater than in decades past. There is even a post-film Longstreet statue on the Gettysburg battlefield (bearing a remarkable resemblance to Tom Berenger, just in case you missed the whole power of media point).

So, whether you agree with me or not, see Gettysburg. Then I suggest you think carefully about Longstreet's plan before you dismiss Lee's as folly, misguided, or whatever. Lee had every reason to believe that he would win in Pennsylvania - his army had more than once done the seemingly impossible against staggering odds. They were on a roll, so to speak, and had momentum to their advantage.

Peace,

Keith

Office Hours: Where is Hattie McDaniel Buried?

[caption id="attachment_2103" align="alignleft" width="240" caption="Hattie McDaniel's house on W. 22nd St. in Los Angeles"][/caption]

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

An anonymous emailer wanted to know - so I did my homework and figured it out. You can find Hattie McDaniel's grave, not in Hollywood Forever where she wanted to be buried, but in Rosedale Cemetery off of Washington Street in Los Angeles. Racism dogged McDaniel to her grave. At the 1939 Academy Awards ceremony, where she won an Oscar for best supporting actress for her portrayal of Mammy in Gone With the Wind, she and her husband had to sit in a separate area outside the segregated main auditorium. In 1942, she had to launch a class action suit to purchase a home in what was then an exclusive all-white neighborhood - on the corner of W. 22nd Street and Harvard Avenue. When she died in 1952, Hollywood Forever, where she wished to be interred, was reserved for white people.

[caption id="attachment_2104" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Hattie McDaniel in Gone With the Wind"][/caption]

And thus her final resting place is Rosedale, established in 1892 - one of the few cemeteries in Los Angeles that allowed black interments. You can easily find her modest headstone today - near the Washington St. entrance and just to the left of the driveway. There is nothing there denoting her accomplishments either as an actress or an activist. Just her name and years of birth and death. While she is not surrounded by Hollywood superstars as she would have been at Hollywood Forever, she is in good company. Buried within Rosedale's 65 acres are several Civil War veterans, some of note, and a number of Los Angeles mayors and other prominent citizens.

Peace,
Keith

PS - Youtube blocked my original video, which featured McDaniel's Oscar acceptance speech. Here is a clip (strangely, available on Youtube).

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

Sneak Peek at the Latest on Gettysburg from the History Channel

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

This might be worth a look - Gettysburg, produced by Tony and Ridley Scott will premiere on Memorial Day. I will be sure to post my review. For now, let's just say that it looks gritty. Tomorrow I will talk more about this - but I think gritty is good.

Enjoy the rest of your Sunday!

Peace,

Keith

Patriotism (and the Brotherhood of Men At Arms) in John Ford's The Horse Soldiers

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I am often embarrassed to admit that there are a number of Civil War films that I still have yet to see. Sometimes, I am embarrassed to admit that I have seen one (for example: Gods and Generals). But I am happy to report that I have now added John Ford's Epic The Horse Soldiers (1959) to the arsenal. Not because I thought it was a particularly good film, but because it will give me something to talk about when I want to impress my friends at parties.

For those of you who have not seen this film -  There are a couple of things going on. First - the tense love-hate relationship between Colonel John Marlowe (John Wayne) and his prisoner, Miss Hannah Hunter of Greenbriar (Constance Towers). Second, there is the even more tense, pretty much all hate relationship between Marlowe and Major Henry Kendall (William Holden), a Union army doctor.

All of this is set in the Civil War Confederacy, behind enemy lines, so to speak - where the Union soldiers wreak havoc on the Rebel's ability to fight. Tearing up railroads, burning cotton and salt mills...you know, the stuff the Union army was great at doing.

Infused in to the war backdrop is an overtly patriotic bent. Both sides seem intently wedded to their cause. And they express this both verbally and through music - as the men of both armies march in to action singing national and otherwise patriotic songs.

But another theme runs alongside - weaving a reconciliatory thread into the story. While both sides clearly want victory - neither seems particularly hostile (emotionally) toward their enemies - well, at least the men act this way. I'll talk about the women some other day. Of course they fight gallantly - it is their duty to do so. But the film contains all the essential ingredients for a "we are all just soldiers after all" wrap up.

Take the encounter between Kendall and one of his old army buddies who had gone with the Rebs. They have a pleasant exchange, naturally, and go their separate ways to their respective causes. This type of scene in a Civil War film is about as obligatory as the one featuring an amputation. Every Civil War picture has it, you know. But the last scene in the film is really my favorite. It leaves you just plain feeling good about things - when a Rebel officer offers his regimental surgeon to look after Union wounded.

See - we can all just get along...right after we kill each other in great profusion.

There is so much more to talk about....slaves, loyal slaves, Confederate women, the transposition of the Battle of New Market (VMI Cadets...) into the Western Theater, Bill Holden's tight pants, John Wayne's acting chops....the list goes on - so I will save some stuff for a later date.

For now, I want to suggest this. Ford released The Horse Soldiers just two years before the Civil War Centennial (1961-1965). This was a commemoration that highlighted the tragedy of the brother against brother war and the spirit of reconciliation. The film is most certainly a reflection of the times on one hand - but on the other....the centennial commemorative period was (officially) devoid of problematic issues. The films highlights a few. Slavery makes more than one appearance in the film in very interesting ways....stay tuned - I will have lots to say about that later.

Peace,

Keith

Longstreet's Beard

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

You know, sometimes things are just plain ridiculous. I mean......asinine. Case in point - Tom Berenger did a fair enough job playing Confederate General James Longstreet in the Film Gettysburg. But the beard....really?????

Whoever did the hair and makeup for this film should be tarred and feathered. Or at least, never allowed to work in the motion picture business. I have heard that wretched looking thing compared to squirrels, beavers, brooms, coon-skin caps, and any number of other things that all would look equally ridiculous glued to a man's chin.

My God people, did anyone think this thing looked like a real beard? Couldn't Berenger have just grown one? It would have been worth the time. It is really really distracting.

But here is another problem. To a whole lot of people, the film Gettysburg is what the  battle - and those who took part in it - looked like. So now, to my horror, when people think of James Longstreet - many of them think of Tom Berenger as Longstreet.

Don't believe me? Take a trip to the battlefield sometime. You will find a very odd (dedicated post Gettysburg) monument to - James "Tom Berenger" Longstreet - beard and all. The power of the motion picture is simply remarkable - despite the sometimes hideous use of fake facial hair.

Peace,

Keith

A Flag and a Lie - W. P. Inman in Cold Mountain

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

So for the second installment of the Cold Mountain review I give you W. P. Inman, or just Inman, if you like.

Inman is what you might expect of a typical Confederate soldier. He does not own slaves, he is a young man, he is a skilled laborer. While he does not seem to have any particular attachment to southern nationalism - if (and when) the war breaks out - he fights...I suppose because it is what everybody else does.

But Inman soon sours on the war - primarily because he realizes (as do all others in the film) that this is a war fought by the working man to protect the rich man's slave. And there you have it in all its simplistic glory: a rich man's war and a poor man's fight.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Seriously, that argument is so tired and cliche that I am surprised anybody still gives it two hours of their valuable time. The truth is, Inman would have had a stake in preserving slavery as well, even though he was not a slaveholder himself. Why you ask?

Well, for one, in a society such that he lived, Inman always stood the chance of one day owning a slave (or more than one) himself - and thereby climbing the social ladder to the upper classes. This "worker of wood" could have expanded his trade and really carved out a nice life for himself in North Carolina. In a democracy, social mobility is a big deal - something that could have been very appealing indeed.

But even if he were not so ambitious, the institution of slavery meant that Inman always stood above another class of people in a stratified society. Not to mention, with slavery intact, he would never have to compete with an entire group of workers who could potentially under bid his labor.

My guess - in the real world of 1860, Inman would have been very happy to support a slave-holding republic, with all that that encompassed.

Peace,

Keith

Every Piece of This War is Man's Bullshit: The Women of Cold Mountain

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I never miss a Civil War film. Cold Mountain?? I saw it in the theater years ago - and it took me three days to get through it the second time around. You can make what you want from that comment.

But despite my not so subtle thumbs down, I still find this film worth speaking about, simply because I find so many things troubling about it. In other words - expect more than one post about Cold Mountain.

Today - it's the ladies. I really want to speak about women in this film vis-a-vis Confederate nationalism. All - not some - but ALL of the women in Cold Mountain are outright opposed to the prospect of Confederate independence. I find this particularly odd. Sure, I am willing to concede that some white women in the South opposed the war - or rather - opposed the Confederacy. Of course, this was not the case - not by a long shot.

The film, based on the 1997 best-selling novel of the same title by Charles Frazier, indeed paints an alarmingly one dimensional portrait of the Confederacy's women - and manages to touch all socio-economic bases in the process. A quick rundown of the three central female characters:

Ada Monroe: a refined, sophisticated, well-to-do daughter of a slave-holding Charleston preacher.

Sally Swanger: neighborhood matriarch and the wife of a middling famer.

Ruby Thewes: abrasive, unsophisticated (yet literate) poor white woman.

All three of these women, despite their vast differences, seem very much in tune with one another when it comes to the prospect of Confederate independence - essentially written off in the beginning of the film as man's folly. "Did you get a picture made," Ada asks Inman, the male protagonist, "with your musket and courage on display?" And in the one of the film's culminating moments (there are several) Ruby sums things up pretty well - "They call this war a cloud over the land - but they made the weather. Then they stand in the rain and say shit it's raining!"

The truth is that one or all three of these women would have very likely supported independence, even if they had grown weary of war - something the author never develops...but something that was considerably important to a great many women. Yes friends, women may not have had the franchise in the 1860s, but were profoundly involved in the political process. They sent their men to war willingly, and in many cases, insisted their men enlist and fight for the cause. Why you ask? Because they had a stake in a slave-holding (and by the way, patriarchal) society. Independence fit very well within their white southern worldview. Those of you who wish to argue with me on this point may do so in the comments - I admit that I am vastly over-simplifying here.

On one hand the film's sentiment fits neatly with a scholarly approach suggesting the Confederacy did itself in internally - that precisely because women did not support the war effort (and thus independence) the fighting spirit of the new nation collapsed. Authors such as Drew Gilpin Faust and others have offered such analytical conclusions.

But - even a cursory look at the letters and diaries written by women during and shortly after the war suggest otherwise. Many were very much on board with a southern Confederacy and heartbroken when it did not materialize. So...the women in Cold Mountain who pray "the sooner we lose this war, the better" most definitely did not speak for everyone.

Peace,

Keith