6 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Great subject, somewhat questionable delivery, September 30, 2006
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
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