Customer Reviews

The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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.

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.

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.

The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film

Although the cutsey title is a turn-off, this is a surprisingly good book about how the Civil War has been depicted in American motion pictures since the earliest days of the one-reeler. It stands heads and shoulders above Blue and Gray on the Silver Screen. The book's subtitle Mythmaking in American Film, pretty much sums up the theme of the book. Chadwick presents a detailed and reasoned argument of why Americans' views of the Civil War have been badly distorted by films that essentially were racist romanticizations of slavery. We all know the drill. Ante-bellum slaves were happy and obedient, loving "ole massa" and his family. But after emancipation, the freed slave is a brute, a vicious threat to white folk, especially women. No one actually started the war unless it was the abolitionists. All the soldiers, whether Union or Confederate were brave, and after the war effected a reconciliation of sorts by joining in the extermination of the western Indians. In short, the movies rewrote history.

But the movie industry simply followed the intellectual and literary trends of the late 19th century designed to heal the wounds of the war and of radical reconstruction The defining moment was the disputed election of Rutherford B Hayes. A deal was cut to withdraw US troops from the South, ending reconstruction and restoring much of the old order. Almost immediately after the last shot was fired, novelists in the South began writing nostalgic "plantation romances" Former Confederate generals wrote memoirs that (when not savaging former colleagues) set the stage for the "lost cause" mythology. Former Confederate politicians and journalists wrote of the ante-bellum South as a harmonious world system different from that of the North, but nevertheless legitimate. Hence it was the abolitionists of the North who collectively, were the snake in the garden of Eden. Serious historians, such as James Rhodes took up this view and embellished it by postulating that States Rights, not slavery was the underlying cause of the war. These views were carried into both northern and southern universities. In southern schools, books that contradicted these views were banned.

Even veterans of the blue and the gray strove to effect reconciliation. Veterans marched in each other's parades. A joint 25th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg brought together old antagonists in harmony. Robert E. Lee became a northern hero as well as a southern icon.

The theater followed. Stage plays depended on love stories, and love stories, especially those involving members of an aristocratic social order fit well into the Lost Cause mythology. By the turn of the century--and the beginning of the motion picture industry--the Lost Cause myth was firmly established in the north as well as the south.

So, it is no accident that of the 800-some silent and talking films produced between 1903 and today, most propagated southern mythology. One might say "so what?" but clearly this mythology has impacted--and continues to impact on American culture and politics. We are now in a revisionist era in which the better historians and sociologists are driving stakes into the heart of the Lost Cause myth--that slavery was really inconsequential to the causes of the war, and that in some arcane fashion, slavery benefited the black. Films such as Glory and Armistead, reverse some of the images to which we have become accustomed, but it's hoped that a new mythology is not being created. The nature of theater--whether on the boards, the silver screen, or TV--is not tolerant of ambiguity if it is to bring financial success. Although the old myth has been shown to be discredited by sober historical research, it is hoped that the pendulum does not swing to a new myth. Howard Fast in his novel Freedom Road set the lineaments of a new myth, in which all the freedmen were heroes; all the former Confederates villains.

Chadwick does an excellent job of tying the movies to their mythological themes and providing a reasoned explanation of how the myth was propagated. The work has adequate citations and an extensive bibliography

Mr.Chadwick attemps to prove that most American films dealing with the "war between the States",were neutral,or actually pro-Southern,in their views.He proves it to me just by his writing on that great classic,"Gone with the Wind"which is unabashedly pro-Confederate.The major Hollywood studios took this course of action for purely ecomonic reasons. Take a hard line,against the South,and your film will not get booked,south of the Mason- Dixon line,and many other places too.The motion picture industry is in the profit making business,NOT TO PREACH.

He writes well of the anti-lynching classic,"The Ox-Bow Incident" but notes its mixed reviews,even in the "liberal" North."A very srange Western",one critic called and so it was,but a great and powerful film.(see my review).Mr.Chadwick makes a few errors,such as calling the Hank Worden character in "The Searchers)(old Mose) a black cowboy,the character is an American Indian.3 1/2 stars is a better rating.

This book is an excellent exploration of how Northern attitudes about the Civil War were reflected in the movies. The Civil War was an extremely popular theme for movies in the silent era (and after) and they tended to promote the Southern view of the war as a noble (but doomed) cause and present the then-popular view of Reconstruction as a terrible mistake. The author's premise is similar to David Blight's (Race and Reunion): that Northern attitudes toward the Confederacy softened during the Jim Crow era due to Northern racism and an inclination toward national unity. I was fascinated by reading about the making of Gone With the Wind, particularly the parts of the novel that were changed in the screenplay (such as favorable references to the KKK, which David O. Selznick chose to cut likely due to the KKK's increasing anti-Semitism). This book is not an attempt to rate the historical accuracy of the movies made about the Civil War and its aftermath, but is an attempt to understand how those movies represented the attitudes of the times in which they were made. It's a great book if you're interested in movie history, Civil War history, and the history of race in America.

An obvious and intentional attack on all things Southern. Mr. Chadwick should be ashamed of himself. As an historian, myself, Mr. Chadwick is more wrong than he will ever know or, at least, will admit.

This book is a joke ...I expected an impartial comparsion of the REAL histocial events of the Civil War and Hollywood's version of it. THis book was a bitter disappointment. The author trashes any film that dared see the South in a sympathtic or favorable light but that is not what [ticked] me off, in fact it was his "historical" facts (those are sarcastic quotes by the way)that had my blood boiling. One of his points is that the South did have many chances to win the war and he is correct BUT NOT at Antietam as he claimed! ...Second after a review of one film he stated that it was like Stonewall waving one of his calvary flags?!?! Stonewall was NEVER in the calvary, he was an infantry commander in the Civil War and an artillery officer in Mexico, the only calavery he commanded he did so indirectly after he took over operations in the Shenandoah. And to show his displeasure of GOne with the WInd (the orginal chick flick)the only paper he can find to back him up is the Communist Daily Worker?!?! ...