The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film and over one million other books are available for Amazon Kindle. Learn more

Buy Used
Used - Good See details
$4.95 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. Details

or
Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering.
 
   
Kindle Edition
 
   
Have one to sell? Sell yours here
The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film
 
 
Start reading The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film on your Kindle in under a minute.

Don't have a Kindle? Get your Kindle here, or download a FREE Kindle Reading App.

The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film [Hardcover]

Bruce Chadwick (Author)
3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)


Available from these sellers.


Formats

Amazon Price New from Used from
Kindle Edition --  
Hardcover $26.95  
Hardcover, September 18, 2001 --  
Paperback $15.00  

Book Description

September 18, 2001
More movies have been produced about the Civil War than about any other aspect of American history. From 1903 (Uncle Tom’s Cabin) to the present, film studios have released more than eight hundred silent and sound pictures about the nation’s most cataclysmic event. In this wonderfully comprehensive study, Bruce Chadwick first shows us how historians, journalists, playwrights, poets and novelists of the late nineteenth century—partly as an effort to reconcile former antagonists—rewrote the war’s history to create enduring legends, most of which had no basis in reality.

Early silent films followed their example, presenting egregiously distorted—and anti-black—stories about the war, which viewers accepted as truth.

Dr. Chadwick gives us a clear (and sometimes humorous) recounting of those films’ plots and themes, including D. W. Griffith’s Birth of a Nation, and goes on to describe dozens of movies from the twenties and thirties, among them the classic Gone With the Wind. In the forties and fifties many westerns were partly or chiefly based on the Civil War, presenting veterans of both armies gone West to make a new life in the territories, now united in their hatred of the Indians, another minority group.

Collectively, all these films created a deeply mythologized and racist version of the war, and of the antebellum period that preceded it and the Reconstruction era that followed. It was a war that, on film, no one actually started (unless they were radical abolitionists) and no one really lost. The movies gave us what the author calls a “moonlight-and-magnolias” view of the past, filled with gallant cavaliers, a saintly Abraham Lincoln, Scarlett and Rhett, brave Northern warriors and beautiful Southern belles. Slaves were portrayed as obedient servants pouring mint juleps, as happy “darkies” toiling long hours in the field for lovable and benevolent masters, or as mere background pieces, like furniture or bales of hay—and, once freed, as menacing and vicious. Thus, Dr. Chadwick tells us, Americans were given segregation and racism on screen in a way that not only validated the racism they saw in their everyday lives but also helped to maintain it. Even after the civil rights movement, which inspired powerful films like Glory that portrayed the courage of black soldiers, such prejudicial films did not entirely disappear.

The Reel Civil War is a book about the power and the perils of both movies and mythmaking, but more than that, it is a book about the American people and how for a very long period their false ideas about their country’s history—in this case a terrible war—were perpetuated by Hollywood.


Editorial Reviews

From Publishers Weekly

From the first of the silent movies, Chadwick (The Two American Presidents) asserts, the Civil War has been presented as a national tragedy, redeemed only by the gallantry of the combatants. Its origins have been obscured, with the slavery question in particular being virtually eliminated from the story. Blacks have been marginalized, presented at best as passive recipients of a freedom won for them by white Northerners. The "old South" emerges as an epitome of civilized grace, destroyed by a war few Southerners really wanted. For Chadwick, D.W. Griffith's virulent Birth of a Nation did not establish these clichés it only institutionalized them. Even Ted Turner's Gettysburg (1993), produced in an age of ethnic sensitivity and political correctness, is built around a story of Americans with two different visions of the right, fighting to sustain those visions. It is a white man's movie; blacks and women have no direct impact. Chadwick argues (and shows in 42 b&w stills) that while this restructuring of history may not be fair or honest, it has been necessary to reintegrate societies torn apart by civil war, and that we are only now approaching a time when the truth can be told cinematically. Others will certainly disagree, on both counts. (Sept. 26)Forecast: While Chadwick lectures on history and film at Rutgers University, few scholars are likely to take his pragmatic approach to heart (or syllabus). But with the racial politics of the Civil War still awaiting full cinematic treatment, this book, by dint of Knopf's distribution if nothing else, could serve as a wake-up call.

Copyright 2001 Cahners Business Information, Inc.

From Library Journal

As a lecturer on history and film at Rutgers and the author of three books on the Civil War (including Brother Against Brother), Chadwick is well suited to his subject. He charts the resiliency of myths about the Civil War in films dating from the silent era to the post-Civil Rights 1970s, when "revisionist" efforts began to appear. These films embraced several myths that helped to undergird racism and segregation, including the portrayal of Southerners as heroic underdogs, Lincoln as saintly "Father Abraham," and slaves as obliging minor characters. Chadwick demonstrates that such filmic distortions were based on earlier historical and cultural interpretations of the era. He usefully examines permutations of these views in chapters about Civil War Westerns and discusses recent films that are more accurate (e.g., Glory, 1989). This volume acquits itself well when compared with accounts like Roy Kinnard's The Blue and the Gray on the Silver Screen (Carol, 1996) and Jim Cullen's The Civil War in Popular Culture (Smithsonian, 1995), which also discussed the Civil War in the context of film. Of interest to Civil War buffs and film scholars, this volume belongs in many libraries, both public and academic. Neal Baker, Earlham Coll., Richmond, IN
Copyright 2001 Reed Business Information, Inc.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 384 pages
  • Publisher: Knopf; 1 edition (September 18, 2001)
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0375409181
  • ISBN-13: 978-0375409189
  • Product Dimensions: 9.4 x 6.5 x 1.3 inches
  • Shipping Weight: 1.6 pounds
  • Average Customer Review: 3.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (8 customer reviews)
  • Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #1,552,696 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

 

Customer Reviews

8 Reviews
5 star:
 (2)
4 star:
 (2)
3 star:
 (2)
2 star:    (0)
1 star:
 (2)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
3.2 out of 5 stars (8 customer reviews)
 
 
 
 
Share your thoughts with other customers:
Most Helpful Customer Reviews

6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Great subject, somewhat questionable delivery, September 30, 2006
By 
Anyechka (Rensselaer, NY United States) - See all my reviews
Although some of the early chapters in this book were a bit slow-going for me (possibly because Mr. Chadwick jumped around from film to film instead of focusing on a major subject, like in his chapters on BOAN and GWTW, or going into more depth on these numerous one-reelers he was reviewing), overall it was a quick and very interesting read. Although I haven't read as much about it or seen as many documentaries about it in recent years as I once did, I've always been fascinated by the Civil War and consider it one of my favorite eras in American history, and I've also been interested in cinematic history for awhile as well. However, as much potential as the subject had, the delivery just came across all wrong.

Mr. Chadwick proves what he set out to prove, that a majority of Civil War films until about the Eighties have been pro-Southern, engaging in historical revisionism, anti-Northern, and quite racist, particularly in the silent and early sound era. However, and I might be wrong, but it just seems as though he's arguing that there seriously should have been more neutral, at best, films being made then. As morally reprehensible as the institutionalised racism of the era was, and as shocking as it was how many universities and schools were engaging in sanitised and revisionist history (though what else is new?!), just consider the era! Who honestly expects the average person of 60-90 years ago to have been as progressive and enlightened about race as the average person today? He also conveniently never even mentions the so-called "race movies" that were popular at the time (the most famous of them being made by director Oscar Michaeux), except for in a footnote at the end. African-Americans were getting prominent and multi-faceted roles in these types of movies, far from the type of work they got in movies made by white directors and producers! Society is constantly evolving and changing. We can feel angry and sad about the racism of the past, but to really expect that things should have been significantly different? It doesn't make it right, just a dark moment in history, an uncomfortable historic fact.

Other reviewers have already mentioned the numerous historical errors or mistakes about films he reviewed, but one error I didn't notice pointed out was his strange definition of "feature." It's news to me that 'The Great Train Robbery' was the first feature. It seems like his definition of a feature is a film that has a plot and a solid beginning, middle, and end, not the one everyone else uses, that of a film that's at least 50 minutes long or so. These things he calls "features" are one-reelers, and even going by his strange definition of "feature" as a movie with a solid structure instead of like the brief flickering images from the 1890s and early Aughts, 'The Great Train Robbery' still wasn't the first film like that. How about 'Le Voyage Dans la Lune' or 'Jack and the Beanstalk' from 1902, for example? There was also a 5-reel passion play filmed in 1897. He also says the 1927 version of 'Uncle Tom's Cabin' was a three-reeler. The movie in question is more like two hours long, not about 30 minutes!

Frankly, Mr. Chadwick comes across as more liberal than even I am, and I was rather turned off by all of the opinionated language, practically hitting the reader over the head with his political opinions and disbelief that the past wasn't as enlightened and presented as historically accurately as it is today. As upsetting as it is to know about things such as racism and the status of women in the past, ultimately the good historian has to just accept that society was radically different then. A good historian should also use neutral unbiased language. He criticises everything so much, barely a good word to concede about any of these films, and I also got the feeling, as another reviewer felt, that Mr. Chadwick feels that Hattie McDaniel didn't deserve her Oscar for Best Supporting Actress. And as he does show, and as anyone who's both read the book and seen the film knows, the virulent racism in GWTW was *significantly* toned down when it was adapted to the screen. Of course it's not as enlightened as a modern movie, but the main focus is supposed to be the love story and the historical events, not the slaves! It's like he ignores or majorly downplays anything standing in the way of presenting his political opinions as the only acceptable, correct, and true ones, anything that might call into question his conclusion. It was also really missing the point yet again when he complained about how most movies made during the Depression weren't about the Depression itself. Most people have always gone to the movies as a form of escape from their troubled or mundane everyday lives. They like to see happy people, fantasies, fairytales, happy endings, not their own bleak or boring lives projected back at them!

He really misses the forest for the trees. Every historian brings his or her bias to the table, and even when something appears unbiased and neutral in tone, it's still pretty hard to find a completely accurate and unbiased historical account of something. This is what accounts for all of the movies and books painting the Old South as it never really was, a land of happy frolicking slaves, mint juleps, ravishing belles, benevolent slavemasters, and everyone living on a gorgeous plantation. As long as modern people have since realised that that's largely a fantasy and not how the majority of Southerners lived, what's the harm in some romanticising? Every place has its own cherished national myths and legends. And while of course slavery was a great evil and morally reprehensible, there actually were slaveowners who treated their slaves well and slaves who genuinely loved their owners, contrary to what Mr. Chadwick says. Not every single slaveowner was like Simon Legree! Besides, if you want to see real history, watch a documentary, don't watch a movie. Most movies based on historical events don't get everything exactly right anyway, and often take many liberties with the story to try to appeal to a wider audience. And does he seriously think that a one-reeler from the Aughts or Teens could have thoroughly delved into the history of the Civil War and what led up to it or developed solid characters? They only had like 10 minutes to tell a story! And also contrary to what he writes, slavery wasn't the only cause of the war. The primary cause was states' rights, which did tie in to slavery, but to say that slavery was the only cause of the war is no better than what elementary school children are taught because they're not yet advanced enough to comprehend and delve into more a detailed and mature analysis of the era.

On the surface I do agree with many of his conclusions, such as the virulent racism in movies in the past, many movies being unfortunately historically inaccurate, the lack of a thorough treatment of the Civil War and President Lincoln in many old movies, and the shockingly open, unapologetic, and virulent racism in BOAN (it's embarrassing how many people even today bend over backwards to defend this film and still feel that D.W. Griffith is some sort of demigod), but it's like he goes overboard in the opposite direction. The unprofessional language and numerous historical errors were also very annoying, as well as the constant beating of the reader over the head with his own opinions. He even manages to work in some anti-Israel and pro-PLO propaganda on page 15, which really set my radar off. I just wish this book had given a more balanced and less opinionated account of this otherwise great subject.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars Somewhat Plausible, January 10, 2003
By 
June Daley (Los Angels, CA, USA) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film (Hardcover)
Granted, I found Mr. Chadwick's book very interesting, but there are some comments I found less than plausible.

One, is he trying to say that Hattie McDaniel did not deserve her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for "GWTW"? Because that is the opinion I had received after reading this book.

Two, he skirted over the issue for "FRIENDLY PERSUASION" that it was basically a pro-Union movie.

Three, Lou Gossett Jr. was not a newcomer when he filmed "ROOTS".

Four, there were plenty of historical errors that appeared in "GLORY", including the omission of Frederick Douglass' sons in the 54th Massachusetts regiment, Douglass' age, and the name of Colonel Shaw's executive officer. The author failed to mention this.

Five, was he serious that "GETTYSBURG" was a pro-Southern movie? And that the novel, "The Killer Angels" was also pro-Southern? That's not the opinion I had received after seeing the movie and reading the novel. The author seemed to have skirted facts that the topic of slavery was mentioned in both mediums and that the Union Army received as much attention as the Southern forces.

Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5.0 out of 5 stars Well-written and a good book overall, January 25, 2012
Amazon Verified Purchase(What's this?)
This book was required for my civil war class, but I honestly really enjoyed reading it for pleasure. I would definitely recommend this book to everyone.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review
 
 
 
Most Recent Customer Reviews






Only search this product's reviews



Suggested Tags from Similar Products

 (What's this?)
Be the first one to add a relevant tag (keyword that's strongly related to this product).
 
(15)
(12)

Your tags: Add your first tag
 

Customer Discussions

This product's forum
Discussion Replies Latest Post
No discussions yet

Ask questions, Share opinions, Gain insight
Start a new discussion
Topic:
First post:
Prompts for sign-in
 


Active discussions in related forums
Search Customer Discussions
Search all Amazon discussions
   
Related forums



So You'd Like to...


Create a guide


Look for Similar Items by Category


Look for Similar Items by Subject