Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
America loves a movie where the underdog prevails. The American Civil War is problematic in that regard because the Southerners were the romantic underdogs. Consequently, a Civil War film catering to that popular taste would need to center on the Confederate side.
And that is a problem because there will always be x percentage of the audience which will refuse to embrace such sympathies. Regardless of any other perceived virtues, the Confederate cause is inseperable from the championing of slavery in a great many people's minds.
The second aspect, that the underdog prevails, is also rendered difficult to portray because in reality the South did not prevail. Even the portrayal of a momentary triumph for the rebels, is diluted by the audience's knowledge that this had all been in vain.
Can we steer clear of the Civil War? That topic has been beaten to death on other threads.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,656,908 times
Reputation: 6391
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative
Its not that the American West is not interesting, its that there is so much else its competing with.
I do agree with your second point and I am also puzzled why there is so little material about before the Civil War. In fact when you look at the totality of Hollywood films, thousands and thousands of films, there is relatively very little about the Civil War, the Revolution and anything to do with the frontier before the war .
.
You had the Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett TV Series.
I'm not sure but it seems Hollywood prefers thier cowboys to use winchesters and SAA Pistols rather than muzzel loaders and musketts
the one story that hasn't been done is the Story of Bass Reaves, who if he were white would be more celebrated than Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson...
You had the Daniel Boone and Davey Crockett TV Series.
I'm not sure but it seems Hollywood prefers thier cowboys to use winchesters and SAA Pistols rather than muzzel loaders and muskett
the one story that hasn't been done is the Story of Bass Reaves, who if he were white would be more celebrated than Wyatt Earp or Bat Masterson...
Except that Earp and Masterson were in the actual West as currently defined (NM, CO, AZ, MT, ID, OR, WA and CA). Boone, Crockett, and Reeves were characters more of the Midwest and South. Although I'm sure I'll catch crap because I'm leaving TX and OK out of my definition of the West, but hey, this is my thread.
The Log of a Cowboy by Andy Adams offers a true depiction of life on the range.
The Life of Buffalo Bill by William F. Cody.
The Authentic Life of Billy the Kid by Pat Garrett. Read both this book and Cody's with a grain of salt. The facts given represent their personal views, but the descriptions of life are very interesting.
Also:
The Captured by Scott Zesch, the stories of children captured by Comanches in Texas, a great read. Later, online, I found more personal accounts of some of these peoples' lives which were published in journals of the day.
Except that Earp and Masterson were in the actual West as currently defined (NM, CO, AZ, MT, ID, OR, WA and CA). Boone, Crockett, and Reeves were characters more of the Midwest and South. Although I'm sure I'll catch crap because I'm leaving TX and OK out of my definition of the West, but hey, this is my thread.
Thing is, when my family reached Iowa, it was frontier. What they lived was really no different than what those who went all the way to the sea experienced. I think we should talk of the pioneer experience as those of pioneers, not where they were settled. If it was Kentucky at the start, or Kansas in the middle or Oregon at the end they were still pioneers and their world was still very much the same as those who came later.
The westward movement is a more encompassing subject than just the geological west.
Thing is, when my family reached Iowa, it was frontier. What they lived was really no different than what those who went all the way to the sea experienced. I think we should talk of the pioneer experience as those of pioneers, not where they were settled. If it was Kentucky at the start, or Kansas in the middle or Oregon at the end they were still pioneers and their world was still very much the same as those who came later.
The westward movement is a more encompassing subject than just the geological west.
My question is specific to the Western third of the U.S. rather than the expansion beyond the original colonial settlements. Although you could argue that the settlement of Iowa and the rest of the Midwest doesn't get much play on here either.
I live 18 miles from Tombstone and 70 from Tucson. It is apparently much more remote here now than it was in the 1880s. Tombsone is barely still a town, Bisbee is more lively but nothing like it wass then. They are too far from the Interstate for people to drive there. I stopped in Dodge City once, that was a disappointment too. I guess it's not a lack of interest, there's nothing there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
