John Steinbeck and the Nineteenth Century

I adore John Steinbeck. I really do. His words, his works, they capture so very much. The human experience. The American experience. I have recently been reading East of Eden for the who knows how manyth time and I was once again taken by his distillation of the nineteenth century. The step toward verse - near poetic, but yet not. So cold and matter of fact. And I think he got it right.  I offer...

History was secreted in the glands of a million historians. we must get out of this banged-up century, some said, out of this cheating murderous century of riot and secret death, of scrabbling for public lands and damn well getting them by any means at all.

Think back, recall our little nation fringing the oceans, torn with complexities, too big for its britches. Just got going when the British took us on again. We beat them, but it didn't do us much good. What we had was a burned White House and ten thousand widows on the public pension list.

Then the soldiers went to Mexico and it was a kind of painful picnic. Nobody knows why you go to a picnic to be uncomfortable when it is so easy and pleasant to eat at home. The Mexican War did two good things though. We got a lot of western land, damn near doubled our size, and besides that it was training for generals, so that when the sad self-murder settled on us the leaders knew the techniques for making it properly horrible.

And then the arguments:

Can you keep a slave?

Well if you bought him in good faith, why not?

Next they'll be saying a man can't have a horse. Who is it who wants to take my property?

And there we were, like a man scratching at his own face and bleeding into his own beard.

Well, that was over and we got slowly up off the bloody ground and started westward.

There came boom and bust, bankruptcy, depression.

Great public thieves came along and picked the pockets of everyone who had a pocket.

To hell with that rotten century!

K

The Civil War - in Living COLOR!

Color? Perhaps. But living? I am not quite certain. I recently had a conversation with my Twitter friend (tweep?) @Hungry4History regarding the merits of colorized Civil War photographs. We agreed that they offer an new look at a familiar subject. One on hand, the images let our imaginations take the helm. The color allows a modern observer to - perhaps - get a little closer to realism. But of course we do this with the full understanding that the colors chosen are left to the discretion of the artist. There is no way of knowing for certain the precise shade of blue a Union soldier's pants had faded to after a hard campaign. Still, as someone who has more than a passing interest in style - I think it is fun to imagine President Lincoln wearing a dark purple necktie as opposed to the customary black. Hello.

I am also troubled by these images for precisely that reason. We don't know. So in a sense, these are more like forgeries...or at best, cases of tampering with historical documents. And they never really look quite right - the eyes of the living resemble the eyes of the dead. Like the cold lifeless eyes of a fish staring back at you in the supermarket. These efforts to resurrect the Civil War to a vibrant new life of color are reminiscent of the Ted Turner campaign years ago to colorize classic black and white films. We all remember how that worked out. They were...and still are...quite horrible.

These people are all dead now, some killed in battle, others by disease, and still others of natural causes decades removed from the conflict. But they were quite alive when their images were captured - painstakingly so with the technology of the age. And the black and white stills do offer life. Look closely at their faces. The subtlety of shade and deep texture reveal so much more than you might at first think. The history of the war is written on their countenances in black, white, and every shade in between...in living detail. Does the colorization enhance this notion, or distract us from it?


K

Harris on Lincoln: A Review (of sorts)

Over the last several days, I have been receiving a lot of notes asking if I had any comments on Steven Spielberg's, Lincoln. As it turns out - I do. Since Lincoln's release I have determined that there are roughly two sets of reviewers that  approach films contending with historical interpretation. Generally speaking, and I am certain that you will find exceptions to my sweeping strokes here, film critics tend to review with an eye toward performance and the portrayal of humanity against the often larger-than-life nature of the story's protagonists and  secondary characters.  They also are likely to judge whether the filmmaker captured the essence of the period in question: lighting, scenery, interiors, and other such crucial visual elements allowing the movie patron a genuine glimpse of said period. Historians, on the other hand, will be on the lookout for historical content and context. They will be sure to point out moments of accuracy and other scenes that are well...off the mark or distorted. Of course, you should probably not be surprised to find historians' comments critical of what did and did not make the historical cut.

I generally wear both hats when I see a period piece - this was indeed the rule when I saw Lincoln on opening day at the Hollywood Cinerama Dome. I tend to agree with film critics' assessment of Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, and other actors' performances. Day-Lewis portrays an all too human Abraham and Field a convincingly troubled Mary - I expected as much from such tremendously talented actors. I also have to agree with historians such as Eric Foner for noting the lack of context when it came to the abolition movement broadly defined. And I found Megan Kate Nelson's discussion of the awkward dialogue between the film's black and white characters insightful. As of yet, I have not come across anyone discussing self-emancipation - but I am sure it will come up eventually.

But my thoughts have moved in a different direction since I saw Lincoln. I think of the weeks leading up to the film - the anticipation was really something to behold in the Civil War Internet world. From all the social media whoop-dee-do emerged a short and hardly seen interview with Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis - a Q&A following a pre-screening of the film at...you guessed it, a film school. Spielberg especially was sensitive to the fact that he was presenting a very narrow view of a vast historical subject. He equated it (and I am paraphrasing here) to looking through to the other side of a fence through a tiny nail hole. His intention was to depict a sliver of history - not the history. I will admit  (as have my colleagues) that the opening scene with Lincoln in conversation with Union soldiers was hard to watch...forced and uncomfortable - but perhaps this was a cinematic device used intentionally to set an uneasy backdrop for a story that ultimately asks some difficult and hard to define questions about the nature of freedom. I will also admit that I have been harshly critical myself of historical films that get it wrong (i.e. Gettysburg, Gods and Generals). Lincoln does not get it wrong, it simply takes on a narrow scope. I will have to say that the film - in terms of the segment of history it intended to present (as opposed to the history that some might expect) - was a smashing success. Spielberg's mission was to provide a snapshot of the trying problems in early 1865 concerning a piece of legislation and to understand one man's struggles confronting them. It was a film about a man, his close circle of contemporaries, and an event, not about a movement. Steven Spielberg is admittedly not operating under any pretense that he is an historian, so I suspect that historians should not judge his film using our own rigorous standards, but rather, examine the film for its cultural import in the 21st century. Why is a film about Abraham Lincoln so important today? Are we still struggling with unresolved issues? Are political, racial, sectional, and cultural divisions embedded in our collective body politic? (hint: yes) Perhaps this is why Spielberg's films so resonates with such a vast audience.

As it is, the film can work as an inspirational stepping off point. I have connected with a number of people who have less than a passing interest in Civil War history who are now intrigued by the era, by Lincoln, and by the war in general. I even hear tell that books have been purchased. I call that a win.

K

The Portent

Hanging from the beam,
Slowly swaying (such the law),

Gaunt the shadow on your green,

      Shenandoah!

The cut is on the crown

      (Lo, John Brown),

And the stabs shall heal no more.

Hidden in the cap

      Is the anguish none can draw;

So your future veils its face,

      Shenandoah!

But the streaming beard is shown

      (Weird John Brown),

The meteor of the war.

 

- Herman Melville, 1859

 

Faulkner

"For every Southern boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that July afternoon in 1863, the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and Pickett himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Longstreet to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than Garnett and Kemper and Armistead and Wilcox look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Pennsylvania, Maryland, the world, the golden dome of Washington itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago."

William Faulkner, Intruder in the Dust - 1948

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

Too Soon?

In the spirit of levity, I submit for your comments, Lincoln, from Saturday Night Live season 38, episode 6 starring Louis C.K.

K

Johnny Cash - God Bless Robert E. Lee

Everyone who knows me knows that I am a big fan of Johnny Cash. Here is his take on the Confederacy's most famous general.  What are your thoughts?

K

A Conversation with Steven Spielberg and Daniel Day-Lewis

This is a fascinating interview with the star and director of Lincoln. The two discuss their interpretation of the man and the various methods they used to recreate the nineteenth century on film. I admire Spielberg for noting that his film is not meant to be the definitive Lincoln, but one strand of analysis depicting a compelling man who lived during a complex time.

K

The Worst Civil War Era Film Ever

Last night, I discovered that The Conspirator was available on Amazon Instant Video. Huzzah, I thought. Having the house to myself, I figured it a perfect time to enjoy a Civil War era film.

I made it through twenty minutes and turned it off.

Keep in mind, I have never walked out on or turned off any Civil War film. Ever. And I have sat through Gods and Generals TWICE. Clearly I am committed to Hollywood's take on this epic historical event. But I just could not stomach this wretched piece of rubbish.

If the first twenty minutes were any indication of things to come in the rest of the film, then I suppose I would have been treated to more over-wrought testaments to "American" jurisprudence - the right to a trial by one's peers and the notion of innocence before guilt can be established without any element of doubt. Thanks for the elementary lesson in  law.

But wait, there are more lessons to be learned here. Yes - Mary Surratt was indeed a woman. Her implication in the murder of Abraham Lincoln and her subsequent execution were shocking to be sure. Thanks for the elementary lesson in nineteenth-century gender assumptions.

The problem, at least in the first few scenes that I could watch, is that both of these issues are of great significance - then and now - and they were glossed over in a tisk-tisk fashion only after dripping a taste of sickening "look-at-how-we've-progressed-but-there's-still-work-to-be-done" syrup on for good measure. And even this was done so in a mumbly dead-pan stumble fest. Such nonsense can only amount to some of the worst writing, the worst acting, the worst directing, or a combination of the three. I would have been more riveted watching a plate of white toast get stale as time slowly, painfully passed.

Not that the film was completely lacking in merits. I got a bit of a chuckle at the actor who played (with all the southern-Gothic styling of a junior high production of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) John Wilkes Booth. His brutish pronunciation of the Virginia state motto in the Ford's Theatre scene - sic semper tyrannis - was delightful. I suppose this was merely an effort to "southernize" or if you like, "Rebelize" the president's assassin (who was a classically trained actor), by giving him a slightly raspier Jethro Bodine-esque accent. Such clumsy and obvious efforts make me laugh.

But who knows? Maybe the utter brilliance of rest of the film made up for the first twenty minutes. I will never know. Perhaps it got slightly less patronizingly preachy. Maybe there was a musical number. Maybe robots. If anyone has seen the whole thing, chime in.

K

 

Trailer for Spielberg's Lincoln

Okay - I am certainly on board with this film. But I always imagined Lincoln emphasizing the object of the preposition in the Gettysburg Address in this fashion:  "of the people, by the people, for the people" as opposed to the preposition itself as in "of the people, by the people, for the people."

Let the nitpicking begin.

K

Drunk History

Today I learned of the Internet sensation, Drunk History. The premise: a comedian, with an "understanding" of an historical event, offers a lesson while proceeding to get completely tanked.

In this episode, Jen Kirkman schools us on the relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass. By the second bottle of wine, the story gets....interesting.

I imagine that my painfully boring high school history class would have attracted a more attentive audience had the teacher knocked a few back before bell rang for 5th period.

But since that didn't happen to me or anyone else, and probably still does not - we historians may have to rely on these episodes to draw more to the discipline. You can enjoy the tale of Lincoln and Douglass by clicking HERE. Really, you should - it''s a story with an all-star cast that you won't want to miss.

K

 

Cosmic America Question of the Day

I am heading out the door to San Francisco - a six-hour or so drive from Hollywood - so I can run the marathon this Sunday. In between packing up the car, making sandwiches for the road, and securing my belonging so the cats do not destroy them while I am gone...I came up with this.

Who is this person? The first to answer correctly in the comment section wins a big Cosmic America shout out.

Do you need a hint? Okay, fine. There is a Civil War connection that has to do with popular culture.

Good luck to you all.

Keith

Shaara on Shaara

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

I was virtually thumbing through C-Span Civil War lectures and I came across novelist Jeff Shaara speaking about his father Michael Shaara's novel, Killer Angels. I do not believe that Shaara the younger is known for brevity (he speaks for over an hour) but he may offer some insights on his father's book that you will find interesting.

For many, Killer Angels and the film based on the novel: Gettysburg function as the definitive history of the battle. In terms of popular history and public memory, I believe that the novel is a must read. Though one should read it with a critical eye.

Watch the video - when you have the time - and let me know what you think. You can check it out HERE.

Peace,

Keith

Marilyn, My Marilyn

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Something a little light and refreshing for a late Friday afternoon - and evidence that pretty much everything reminds me (sort of) of some aspect of  the Civil War...today I went to Grauman's Chinese Theater for the celebration of the 50th anniversary of Marilyn Monroe's last living birthday (she would be 86). And what do you know, a whole pack of would be Marilyns turned up.

Well, I do not believe that this sort of spectacle is what Robert E. Lee's men had in mind when the marched northward from Virginia in the fall of 1862 singing Maryland, My Maryland - but the fake (some really fake) Marilyns made me think of the tune. In fact, I even whistled a few bars on the short walk from the Chinese back to my house in Hollywood.

You know, dear readers - it can be really fun living here. There is always something interesting to do. Grauman's will be showing Monroe films for the next week...maybe I will catch one or three.

And on Sunday, I promise to talk about something a tad more closely connected to the Civil War. Until then...

Peace,

Keith

 

Finger Lickin' Dead

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

[caption id="attachment_2584" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Well love him then...in HELL!!"][/caption]I saw this video a while back posted at Kevin Levin's Civil War Memory - and it seemed like time that I shared it here as well. So what do you know - when Mel Gibson isn't being a misogynistic anti-Semite, he actually has a sense of humor.

Peace,
Keith

Titus Andronicus - A More Perfect Union

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

Today I am featuring a little more fun with Civil War imagery in 21st century popular culture. The video is by New Jersey's own Titus Andronicus. Their album, The Monitor, develops a number of Civil War themes. Have a listen to the whole thing, you will recognize plenty. For now, I would love your thoughts on the video for this song: "A More Perfect Union." I found it most agreeable.



Peace,
Keith

Jesse Rosten and Death in the Civil War

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

This is Building Houses, by Wesley Jensen. Director and Editor Jesse Rosten said of his video, "The thought of dying scares me to death. So I made this video hoping to convince myself it won’t be that bad. Turn it up, watch it full screen."

I wonder how that worked out for him. Comments welcome.

Peace,
Keith

Wiser Bobbleheads Prevailed

Greetings Cosmic Americans!

As a quick follow-up to Sunday's post, I would like to inform all of my avid readers that yes indeed...the John Wilkes Booth bobblehead has been removed from the Gettysburg Visitor Center gift shop. Now...we can all breathe a sigh of relief and get back to the serious stuff. Unless of course, someone starts selling a Henry Wirz bobblehead at Andersonville. Oh! The horror!

You can get the skinny HERE from the Gettysburg Evening Sun. The paper went so far as to get a quote from prominent Lincoln historian Harold Holzer. I have to agree professor...wiser bobbleheads have, with unquestionable certainty, prevailed. Holzer went on to suggest that the Booth bobblehead is along the lines of an Oswald doll at the Kennedy Center. Maybe so. And for those of you who want to know, I assure you I would never purchase such an object. But...if they ever come out with a set of Guys on the Grassy Knoll bobbleheads for the conspiracy theorist in all of us, I may consider it.

Peace (and back to business),

Keith

The South is Avenged...

...is at least one of the phrases witnesses to the Lincoln assassination heard John Wilkes Booth shout as he jumped to the stage from the presidential box. The other, and of course the most well known phrase that Booth bellowed to the audience at Ford's Theatre: Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Greetings Cosmic Americans! I wonder which of these phrases the Gettysburg Visitor Center employee had in mind when he or she decided to stock their gift shop with a John Wilkes Booth bobblehead? Both Kevin Levin and Brooks Simpson reported on this event - the story hit the Internet yesterday and didn't take long to find its way to the Civil War blogosphere.

I offer only a few words in critique. It entirely trivializes a dreadful chapter in the Civil War epic (as do many of the souvenirs available in Gettysburg gift shops - remember the Kitty Cats?). But worse yet, poor taste aside - the toy is pretty vulgar. For shit's sake - the man murdered the president.

Feel free to chime in.

Peace,

Keith