Change Your Image
schear
Reviews
King Arthur (2004)
Plot hole beyond belief
Although I generally liked this movie the poor script and wooden acting plagued it often. Its best aspects were the sets and art direction, background research into the historical and cultural aspects of the place and time, the cinematography, location shooting and action sequences. The music score was also notable.
The sets deserve particular acclaim. Rather than use CG techniques for creating Hadrian's Wall the producers opted to actually build a one kilometer structure, the largest set ever built in Ireland, to lend extra realism to many scenes.
That was the good, now for the bad. The plot hinges on the rescue of a nobleman's family, especially his young son who is being groomed for high office in the church. This family's estate is supposedly located north of the Wall and is about to be over-run by an invading army of Saxons. The primary reason for the Wall was to protect Romans on the southern side and keep out the hoards of Picts and other barbarian people (now mainly the Scots) that plagued the Empire's tenuous grip on Britain in the 3rd and 4th centuries A.D. Why an important Roman noble family would choose to or be permitted to live north of the wall and expose themselves to the Pict raids (and require possible rescue from time-to-time by legions stationed at the Wall) is beyond belief give the state of affairs as otherwise presented in the movie.
The Mirror Crack'd (1980)
Spoiler: Inspired by a true story
A relatively weak who-done-it. Ms. Taylor is an American actress trying to stage a comeback after a personal tragedy sidelined her career. The setting is 1953 England. Her husband, Rock Hudson, is the film's director, and the producer's (Tony Curtis) wife (Kim Novak) her archrival.
Although credited as being based on an Agatha Christie novel, the movie was also inspired by the real-life tragedy of the beautiful and talented actress Gene Tierney. During a U.S.O. road show while she was pregnant, Ms. Tierney contracted measles and gave birth to a mentally retarded daughter in 1943.
If you blink you'll miss Pierce Brosnan in one of his first, and uncredited, screen appearances.
Gods and Generals (2003)
Too bad the film begins in 1861
Gods and Generals is arguably the first major film to treat our Civil War in both depth and breadth and not veer into political correctness. Those participating had a broad variety of convictions and motives. Previous fictional (e.g., Glory) and documentary (e.g., Ken Burns' The Civil War) treatments hew to the tired old line that slavery was either the only cause for the War or the only one of consequence (it certainly became the major Northern motive later).
This war's cause was no more about slavery than WW II was about saving the Jews from the Holocaust or the recent Iraq war was about weapons of mass destruction. Current events are instructive in the way leaders often seek to recast events and decisions in their best light and distance themselves from unsupportable things they said prior to a conflict.
If the film had even briefly covered the decades leading up to the Rebellion (as it was known in those times) it could have more clearly revealed how both sides were manipulated into the conflict by their extreme elements:
- rich Northern businessmen sought to protect their uncompetitive manufacturing from European imports with heavy tariffs which fell disproportionately on the South.
- Republican leaders focused on wiping out states rights and strengthening the Federal government in order to build an American empire and reward their wealthy constituents through massive political patronage
- Northern abolitionists (a minority within the Republican Party), and
- wealthy Southern plantation owners fearing future restrictions on the future of slavery.
As other reviewers have pointed out, this film is long (too long for most audiences) and its use of contemporary dialog strikes today's ear as pretentious.
Another particular objection I have is the absence of any reference to how badly Gen. Lee bungled the war. By not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington. Gen. Jackson begged Lee for available reinforcements but Lee refused (he later said it was his worst decision). If Lee had agreed the war might have ended right then, 500,000 lives saved (including Lincoln's) and the possibility of peaceful emancipation made likely. Most importantly, we would still be a republic in fact and not simply in name.
Suggested reading: DiLorenzo - The Real Lincoln Adams - When in the Course of Human Events Freehling - The Road to Disunion: Session at Bay 1776 - 1854
The Civil War (1990)
Rebellion without a cause
The first disc (this review applies to the DVD release) is subtitled "The Cause," and since it deals with the opening of the war, I guessed that we would have a look at the motivation and inspiration for the Southern rebellion. Sadly, there is nothing of the sort here, no comprehensive attempt to understand the Southern mentality of the time, or, for that matter, much of the Northern. The whole conflict is cast as a war for and against slavery, which I believe confuses the cause with the effect. It is a bit like saying that the United States entered the Second World War out of a determination to end the Holocaust. There is no doubt that a small number of Northern soldiers were motivated primarily by a desire to make war upon slavery, but most Unionists, including Abraham Lincoln at the beginning of his presidency, had no particular problem with slavery, and outspoken abolitionists were regarded as rather dangerous radicals. Most Southern troops were not slave-owners. Ken Burns offers no explanation.
One indication of Burns' failure are comments by the documentary's primary historian, Shelby Foote, in his Special Features interview. "It seemed to me to lean a little heavily on slavery as the biggest problem of the war, which I don't think it was, especially to the people who fought it".
The Civil War's roots lie not in abolitionist sentiment but in unfair taxation, corruption and power. It was mainly a struggle between those who supported the very limited Federal government sought by the Founders (especially the Southern Democrats) and those who desired a stronger central government as a tool for empire building and massive political patronage (the Republicans).
Martin Scorcese's "Gangs of New York" (see my review) gave us a glimpse of the ambivalence of many whites toward the War, the draft resistance by the poorer working class and the open anti-Negro sentiment in the North.
The vocal minority of abolitionists were merely tools of Lincoln. Almost everywhere else in the 19th century slavery was ended by peaceful compensated emancipation, but Lincoln rejected this route (he even dismissed and disciplined several of his Generals who attempted to emancipate slaves in newly captured territory). His aim was to deport freed slaves to Liberia.
Lincoln sought to destroy the Constitution in order to save the Union. Like brutally beating your spouse in order to save your marriage. He greatly miscalculated the resolve of The South just as The South misjudged just how far Lincoln was willing to go to in order to destroy states rights and the widely held assumption of peacefully secession.
If not for the foolish chivalry of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington, the war might have ended right then, 500,000 lives saved (including Lincoln's) and the possibility of peaceful emancipation made likely. Most importantly, we would still be a republic in fact and not simply in name.
Burns deals with none of this. In the end these fundamental omissions turn the "Civil War", unfortunately, into merely exquisite propaganda.
Gangs of New York (2002)
Eastside Story
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** An overlong, unfocused, too broadly played costume drama. At times I expected the cast to break out into dance, like the Sharks and Jets of Westside Story. That's too bad because this episode in American history is one that really needed telling. Warning, spoiler follows.
Historically, the film is remarkable in that it accurately portrays the New York City working class' violent opposition to the Lincoln administration during the War for Southern Independence. At one point in the movie, as the caskets of dead New Yorkers are piled up on the docks, a large crowd chants, "New York should secede!" "New York should secede!", which has to be the most politically incorrect movie segment of the past several decades.
In another scene Irish immigrants who have been in the U.S. for only a few days are told to sign one piece of paper that grants them citizenship and another one that enrolls them in the Union army. They are completely unaware of their fate: One immigrant asks, "Where are we going?" "Tennessee" is the answer, to which he responds: "Where's that?" These men were to go down south to ostensibly teach the grandchildren of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry what it really means to be an American. Thousands of them would be slaughtered after being ordered by General Ulysses S. Grant to charge into Robert E. Lee's well-entrenched army.
The climax of the movie is the New York City draft riots of July 1863. The government began enforcing Lincoln's conscription law, accurately depicted in a newspaper headline in the film as "The First Federal Conscription Law." The wealthy Republican industrialists and bankers who were the backbone of the Republican Party saw to it that Lincoln's conscription law would spare their own male children by allowing one to buy one's way out of the draft for $300. This led to violent protests against the inequity of "a rich man's war."
In mid July of 1863 potential draftees went on a weeklong rampage, targeting the houses and property of the Republican Party elite of New York City. New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, who had become a Republican Party mouthpiece, is shown running for his life from a dinner party at a palace-like residence in the good part of town as the draft protesters break the windows and loot the house. As Iver Bernstein wrote in The New York City Draft Riots, "Rioters tore through expensive Republican homes on Lexington Avenue and took - or more often destroyed - pictures with gilt frames, elegant pier glasses, sofas, chairs, clocks, furniture of every kind."
Another perfectly accurate portrayal is the hunting down and murdering of any and all black people who were unfortunate enough to be on the streets of New York. Since Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation had recently declared emancipation to be a purpose of the war, the draft protesters vented their hatred for Lincoln and his war on the hapless black people of New York City. There are scenes in the movie of black men being beaten to death and lynched, which once again is perfectly accurate.
Just as realistic is the scene where thousands of federal troops are called up from the recently concluded Battle of Gettysburg and ordered to fire indiscriminately into the crowds. Hundreds of unarmed draft protesters, including women and children, are gunned down and are shown lying dead in the streets. This really happened, and is well documented in Bernstein's book and elsewhere, but most Americans have never heard of it (naturally). Gunships are also shown bombarding the parts of the city where the rioting was taking place.
It's too bad that these immigrants and working class didn't have politically savvy organizers. Had the draftees realized that few would return they might have correctly surmised that the enemy was the State and the wealthy and turned their guns against their commanding officers.
Glory (1989)
Great entertainment, poor history
Glory is one of the most touching and brilliantly acted war films ever made. The realism and attention to battlefield detail are exceptional. It's also substantially propaganda. The Civil War's roots lie not in abolitionist sentiment but in unfair taxation, corruption and power. It was mainly a struggle between those who supported the very limited Federal government sought by the Founders (the Democratic Party and The South) and those who desired a stronger central government able to enrich themselves, the party in power and their supporters through massive political patronage (the Whig and later the Republican Party, headed by Abraham Lincoln).
For economic reasons at that time, racism in The North was even more virulent than in The South and the vocal minority of abolitionists were merely tools of Lincoln in achieving his own goals. Almost everywhere else in the 19th century slavery was ended by peaceful compensated emancipation, but Lincoln rejected this route and dismissed or disciplined several of his Generals who attempted to emancipate slaves in newly captured territory. Many slaves who ended up in the hands of the Federal army were not set free but were put to work doing the most unpleasant tasks in and around army encampments. Others were sent back to their owners. Congress passed several "confiscation acts" in the early years of the war that allowed Federal troops to confiscate the slaves (and other property) in conquered rebel territory.
I suspect that Lincoln was not playing with a full deck. In effect he sought to destroy the Constitution in order to save the Union. Sort of like brutally beating your spouse in order to save your marriage. He greatly miscalculated the ability and resolve of The South on the battlefield against the The North just as The South misjudged just how far Lincoln was willing to go to in order to destroy states rights and the widely held assumption that states could peacefully secede from the Union.
Shelby Foote, consultant for Glory and author of The Civil War, stated, "Lincoln had maneuvered [the Confederates] into the position of having either to back down on their threats or else to fire the first shot of the war." Interestingly, no one was injured at Fort Sumter even though the bombardment lasted 36 hours. Its only due to the foolish chivalry of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, in not following up their rout of the Union Army at the war's first big battle of Bull Run (called First Manassas in The South) just outside Washington, the war might have ended and 500,000 lives saved.
For a compete treatment of an alternative view to The Civil War, see The Real Lincoln, by Thomas DiLorenzo.
Where the Rivers Flow North (1993)
An overlooked gem
Director Jay Craven's adaptation of Howard Frank Mosher's 'Where the rivers flow north' is one of the finer transitions from literature to the screen. Craven is an admirer of Mosher's work -- he also directed 'A stranger in the Kingdom'.
The cast is superb -- especially Rip Torn and Tantoo Cardinal. Torn offers what could be the finest role of his career -- Noel Lord, the fiercely independent former lumberjack who is at the center of this story. Tantoo Cardinal's portrayal of Lord's live-in housekeeper/common-law wife is dead-on as well. I'm both amazed and disappointed that neither of them were nominated for Oscars when this film was released. Performances of this calibre should be acknowledged. The only character that's a little hard to swallow for me is the power company executive played by Michael J. Fox. He just looks too much like a kid in this role. I guess there's a curse attached to youthful looks, no matter how much people want them.
Craven has done a nice job here in bringing the character of early 20th century Vermont to the screen -- locations, angles, sets, all combine to transport the viewer to the time and place of the story. Cinematographer Paul Ryan was exceptional. The score by the Horseflies is also first rate -- it fits the mood and scenery perfectly.
And the story itself...? One of the most compelling portrayals of the fiercely independent American pioneer spirit ever -- a trait that is on the wane in this day and age. When it appears in modern times, the person is often looked upon with suspicion and disdain. In Noel Lord, we have a character whom we can admire for his values, and even for his stubbornness.
This is not a stodgy 'period piece', but a vibrant look at an era that is gone, and a type of character that has all but vanished. These are not gold-plated heroes, but real people, with both strengths and weaknesses at play within them. struggling in a harsh environment to live their lives and at the same time be at peace with the world in which they live. Like today, there are those who wield power that would have it otherwise.