Why We Don't Have Good Civil War Movies (Or Art)
August 18, 2024 6:00 PM Subscribe
In both social media and his column (archive link), New York Times columnist and pundit Jamelle Bouie discusses the lack of Civil War movies that honestly grapple with the conflict and slavery as its driving force, and how the Lost Cause movement is to blame.
Over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money, they extend the discussion to Civil War art and media in general.
Over at Lawyers, Guns, & Money, they extend the discussion to Civil War art and media in general.
hmmm. 24 years old is what Glory is.
posted by bq at 6:05 PM on August 18 [10 favorites]
posted by bq at 6:05 PM on August 18 [10 favorites]
I basically had the same two beat thought process as bq. Oof.
Anyway for great civil war nerdery and lost cause debunking see atun-shei films.
posted by Wretch729 at 6:13 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
Anyway for great civil war nerdery and lost cause debunking see atun-shei films.
posted by Wretch729 at 6:13 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
what is 'Glory'?
This illustrates the point, though - when you talk about Civil War films that honestly discuss the driving motivation of the Civil War, the answer is just Glory. Meanwhile, we get horrible Confederate apologia like Gods and Generals pumped out recently.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:13 PM on August 18 [7 favorites]
This illustrates the point, though - when you talk about Civil War films that honestly discuss the driving motivation of the Civil War, the answer is just Glory. Meanwhile, we get horrible Confederate apologia like Gods and Generals pumped out recently.
posted by NoxAeternum at 6:13 PM on August 18 [7 favorites]
Recently? Gods and Generals came out in 2003, twenty-one years ago.
posted by fortitude25 at 6:16 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by fortitude25 at 6:16 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
It would help if there were other Civil War documentaries besides the one that centers Lost Cause apologists and Nathan Bedford Forrest fanboys.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 6:57 PM on August 18 [5 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 6:57 PM on August 18 [5 favorites]
Well I guess the question expands to "what is a Civil War movie?" Like, does it have to include the entire Civil War from start to finish? Can it include just one battle of the Civil War, or focus on just a few people in the Civil War, or just one locale?
posted by corb at 7:02 PM on August 18
posted by corb at 7:02 PM on August 18
In spite of serious problems it is having with Nazis in the AfD today, Germany was faced with absolute surrender and so was forced to deal head-on with its Nazi past.
No one has forced — no one has been able to force — Americans to deal with their own genocidal past, not even tangentially.
When people walked peacefully to protest against the murder of George Floyd, the former president of this country in turn marched effectively hand-in-hand with four-star general Mark Milley down the streets of Washington DC and gassed peaceful protestors, holding a Christian Bible.
The media looked the other way and they still do. Trump is still allowed to run for office today, without any hard questions from our journalists about what he did that day, let alone any questions about the numerous other felony-level crimes he has committed, some which he has even been convicted of in a court of law.
Maybe people in charge of our systems don't want to address slavery or our past because of the same reason that we kept slaves, because it made America an economic powerhouse. Dealing with our country's shameful past now would still be bad for business.
Having the media even ask questions about the white supremacist movement that is allowed to run for office in 2024 would be bad for business. Dealing with Trump and his followers would be bad for business.
Not even Spielberg, who made Schindler's List and vowed never again to portray Nazis in a comedic light, could take on slavery in Lincoln, except in very broad strokes that didn't really hint at the numerous compromises that the former president made to deal with his political opponents. Slavery is a third rail, even for someone who made a film about concentration camps.
Biden signs an order to establish a monument to honor the 1908 victims of a race riot in Springfield, Illinois, and then the media goes back to giving Trump free coverage without questioning his racism or that of his followers.
The complicity is obvious and it's not just about movies, as important as they are for how the public processes our past.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:03 PM on August 18 [37 favorites]
No one has forced — no one has been able to force — Americans to deal with their own genocidal past, not even tangentially.
When people walked peacefully to protest against the murder of George Floyd, the former president of this country in turn marched effectively hand-in-hand with four-star general Mark Milley down the streets of Washington DC and gassed peaceful protestors, holding a Christian Bible.
The media looked the other way and they still do. Trump is still allowed to run for office today, without any hard questions from our journalists about what he did that day, let alone any questions about the numerous other felony-level crimes he has committed, some which he has even been convicted of in a court of law.
Maybe people in charge of our systems don't want to address slavery or our past because of the same reason that we kept slaves, because it made America an economic powerhouse. Dealing with our country's shameful past now would still be bad for business.
Having the media even ask questions about the white supremacist movement that is allowed to run for office in 2024 would be bad for business. Dealing with Trump and his followers would be bad for business.
Not even Spielberg, who made Schindler's List and vowed never again to portray Nazis in a comedic light, could take on slavery in Lincoln, except in very broad strokes that didn't really hint at the numerous compromises that the former president made to deal with his political opponents. Slavery is a third rail, even for someone who made a film about concentration camps.
Biden signs an order to establish a monument to honor the 1908 victims of a race riot in Springfield, Illinois, and then the media goes back to giving Trump free coverage without questioning his racism or that of his followers.
The complicity is obvious and it's not just about movies, as important as they are for how the public processes our past.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 7:03 PM on August 18 [37 favorites]
The author seems to have only mentioned a handful of movies; Gettysburg (half-watched), Birth of a Nation, Gone With the Wind and Lincoln.
It's almost as though the breadth of scope required to accurately portray a conflict that nearly cleaved the US in two would call for a lot of time. Perhaps more than is allowed by western movie running-time standards. Let's say, perhaps... 11 hours, 30 minutes?
posted by neuracnu at 7:07 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
It's almost as though the breadth of scope required to accurately portray a conflict that nearly cleaved the US in two would call for a lot of time. Perhaps more than is allowed by western movie running-time standards. Let's say, perhaps... 11 hours, 30 minutes?
posted by neuracnu at 7:07 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
It would help if there were other Civil War documentaries besides the one that centers Lost Cause apologists and Nathan Bedford Forrest fanboys.
Ken Burns' The Civil War has both of those in one dude! And it's 24 years old.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:13 PM on August 18 [9 favorites]
Ken Burns' The Civil War has both of those in one dude! And it's 24 years old.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:13 PM on August 18 [9 favorites]
From The 15 Best Movies About the American Civil War, Ranked According to IMDb:
Free State of Jones (2016) is about Confederate deserters resisting the Confederacy.
Andersonville (1996) is about the horrific Confederate prison camp.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:22 PM on August 18 [10 favorites]
Free State of Jones (2016) is about Confederate deserters resisting the Confederacy.
Andersonville (1996) is about the horrific Confederate prison camp.
posted by kirkaracha at 7:22 PM on August 18 [10 favorites]
My parents had to hide their VHS copy of Gettysburg, because as a kid I kept watching and re-watching it. I agree with the OP that it's not at all what he's looking for in terms of getting to grips with slavery's role, but I think that good films about the Civil War can get people interested in the history, and getting interested in the history can in turn bring people to a proper understanding of "what happened and why" that isn't necessarily present in the media that first piqued their interest.
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:27 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 7:27 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
Good Lord Bird is an HBO miniseries about the lead up to the civil war, and is definitely worth a watch.
posted by grokus at 8:01 PM on August 18 [8 favorites]
posted by grokus at 8:01 PM on August 18 [8 favorites]
I was dialing around the tv last night and ran across a John Wayne movie with a defeated but Heroic and Noble Confederate soldiers. It was pretty sickening. I only watched for about two minutes, not sure what it was, but maybe The Undefeated. Anyway, my point was, it was yet another Hollywood apologia for the so-called Lost Cause.
posted by etaoin at 8:21 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by etaoin at 8:21 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
I wonder whether some creators have decided that instead of Civil War fiction focused on the war, they would rather concentrate on making films/books/etc. about slave experiences (such as "12 Years A Slave") or alternate histories (such as "Underground Airlines").
posted by brainwane at 8:35 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by brainwane at 8:35 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
To ditto they sucked hiss brains out, the primary argument I’ve read is that the victorious side let the losers erect monuments, define narratives, and generally save face to prevent another civil war. You know… they didn’t want more pain and suffering (see also: punitive measures in WWI leading to WWII)… of at least the hegemonic class of people (damn slaves of African descent and their descendants with no sense of hypocrisy or prescience).
posted by rubatan at 8:38 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
posted by rubatan at 8:38 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
Following up on my earlier (11hr 30min) post, I wasn’t aware of the Burns’ documentary being in line with southern atrocity denialism (or that this had a specific name, Lost Cause). It’s been a long time since I watched that docu. I’m glad I’ve learned more.
posted by neuracnu at 8:58 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by neuracnu at 8:58 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
>24 years old is what Glory is.35 years old, actually. 1989 — a year that's best understood as the debut of unrelated Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam by Technotronic.
posted by theory at 9:07 PM on August 18 [26 favorites]
Mod note: A few deleted. Please stop derailing to start up weird little personal spats.
posted by taz (staff) at 9:40 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
posted by taz (staff) at 9:40 PM on August 18 [3 favorites]
That HBO was more comfortable commissioning a Confederacy Wins show from the GoT guys before they shit the bed rather than make a series following the American Civil War, a natural choice especially when people were pretending Prestige TV was a thing, tells you all you need to know about America and the entertainment industry's attitude.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 PM on August 18 [12 favorites]
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 PM on August 18 [12 favorites]
This is the most “Area Man Confidently Asserts Opinion” columns I’ve read from Bouie in a long while. Maybe he has more details in his skeets.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:49 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
posted by Going To Maine at 11:49 PM on August 18 [1 favorite]
Ken Burns' The Civil War has both of those in one dude! And it's 24 years old.With the age of Glory also being described about a decade off early on, I thought maybe this was a bit, but The Civil War is 34 years old.
posted by Strutter Cane - United Planets Stilt Patrol at 12:55 AM on August 19
I love the YouTube series Checkmate, Lincolnites! It's all about debunking the Lost Cause narrative.
posted by Pendragon at 1:38 AM on August 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Pendragon at 1:38 AM on August 19 [2 favorites]
I remember when I finally watched The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly and realised it was, to a limited degree, a Civil War film. I think its tale of cynical greed and bullying would probably put it in the top 10 from a modern perspective, but what we really need is a Badass General Tubman film.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:43 AM on August 19 [6 favorites]
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:43 AM on August 19 [6 favorites]
I wonder whether some creators have decided that instead of Civil War fiction focused on the war, they would rather concentrate on making films/books/etc. about slave experiences (such as "12 Years A Slave") or alternate histories (such as "Underground Airlines").
QFT.
Slavery is a third rail, even for someone who made a film about concentration camps.
Absolutely. Outside of historical fantasy, I see no way to portray a combat-focused version of this story to a popular* audience without valorizing the Union Army, which is going to dump buckets of sand into many people's personal gears, to say nothing of the almost inevitability of such a film being read as a white savior narrative, regardless of the creators' intent. Stories about civilian experiences during with/related tot he war are cool, but (as noted above) they immediately raise questions for some audience members of whether it's "really" a war film then.**
* Art films are different, of course, but I have no sense of whether art film directors are interested in this.
** Wonderful works have been created to this end, but for every This War Of Mine, there are 7,253 works where the hero is a conquering--or at least victorious--soldier.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:32 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
QFT.
Slavery is a third rail, even for someone who made a film about concentration camps.
Absolutely. Outside of historical fantasy, I see no way to portray a combat-focused version of this story to a popular* audience without valorizing the Union Army, which is going to dump buckets of sand into many people's personal gears, to say nothing of the almost inevitability of such a film being read as a white savior narrative, regardless of the creators' intent. Stories about civilian experiences during with/related tot he war are cool, but (as noted above) they immediately raise questions for some audience members of whether it's "really" a war film then.**
* Art films are different, of course, but I have no sense of whether art film directors are interested in this.
** Wonderful works have been created to this end, but for every This War Of Mine, there are 7,253 works where the hero is a conquering--or at least victorious--soldier.
posted by cupcakeninja at 5:32 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
I actually thought Apple TV's Manhunt was really interesting 'grappling' but it was more about about the start of Reconstruction. It wasn't super great TV but it was interesting to see a show grappling with how Lincoln's ideals were pretty much immediately betrayed after his assassination.
posted by srboisvert at 5:36 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 5:36 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
the primary argument I’ve read is that the victorious side let the losers erect monuments, define narratives, and generally save face to prevent another civil war. You know… they didn’t want more pain and suffering
"Let"? Pretty much a first amendment issue. And it's not as if there aren't monuments aplenty to Union heroes and dead, never mind an ocean of narratives praising the victorious north. (The north was quick of the mark as far as putting up monuments. It took the south a few decades to catch up and overtake, presumably because of their shattered economy.)
Moreover, after a war that cost the country two percent of its population* (today, that would be nearly seven million people) and left much of the country in smoldering ruins, a call for charity for all and malice toward none wasn't the worst thing to suggest. Words to live by.
The war that began as a fight to restore the Union and ended as a crusade against human bondage stands as one of the finest moments in our nation’s history.
Interestingly, the success of abolition as a justification for the north's call to arms appears to have taken a while to get traction:
"...less than 5 percent of known Union inscriptions refer explicitly to the abolition of slavery as an achievement celebrated by the monument.
*Numbers vary. Certainly they skewed higher in the south, estimates of 13% white southern males lost, or more.
posted by BWA at 6:49 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
"Let"? Pretty much a first amendment issue. And it's not as if there aren't monuments aplenty to Union heroes and dead, never mind an ocean of narratives praising the victorious north. (The north was quick of the mark as far as putting up monuments. It took the south a few decades to catch up and overtake, presumably because of their shattered economy.)
Moreover, after a war that cost the country two percent of its population* (today, that would be nearly seven million people) and left much of the country in smoldering ruins, a call for charity for all and malice toward none wasn't the worst thing to suggest. Words to live by.
The war that began as a fight to restore the Union and ended as a crusade against human bondage stands as one of the finest moments in our nation’s history.
Interestingly, the success of abolition as a justification for the north's call to arms appears to have taken a while to get traction:
"...less than 5 percent of known Union inscriptions refer explicitly to the abolition of slavery as an achievement celebrated by the monument.
*Numbers vary. Certainly they skewed higher in the south, estimates of 13% white southern males lost, or more.
posted by BWA at 6:49 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
On Bluesky, some people mentioned "Lincoln" and discussion ensued about whether it is a "war movie."
There are movies that take place during Christmas but are not in the "Christmas movie" genre - similarly some movies or books have romance subplots but are not "romances" in the sense that "a romance" generally refers to a story that focuses on 2 characters overcoming obstacles to unite/reunite and is guaranteed a Happy For Now or Happily Ever After ending.
A genre is partly about a particular theme - it's a way of telling particular stories. Like, procedurals are about reasserting order in the face of antisocial acts, and romances are about the rewards of bravery and vulnerability, that kind of thing.
War movies and historical fiction movies... what themes are they most suited to focus on? War movies: camaraderie and idealism and grit and heroism, right? Depending on the approach, of course - anti-war movies are their own subgenre that does different things.
With historical fiction it depends so much on the period/place and perspective..... Bridgerton or Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries or Downton Abbey or Spartacus or Shogun are doing different things, right?
So I am thinking about what stories creators are already telling that are doing bits of what a Union-perspective Civil War movie does, but not in the specific form of a "Civil War movie" that shows us a lot of soldiers in battle.
posted by brainwane at 7:00 AM on August 19
There are movies that take place during Christmas but are not in the "Christmas movie" genre - similarly some movies or books have romance subplots but are not "romances" in the sense that "a romance" generally refers to a story that focuses on 2 characters overcoming obstacles to unite/reunite and is guaranteed a Happy For Now or Happily Ever After ending.
A genre is partly about a particular theme - it's a way of telling particular stories. Like, procedurals are about reasserting order in the face of antisocial acts, and romances are about the rewards of bravery and vulnerability, that kind of thing.
War movies and historical fiction movies... what themes are they most suited to focus on? War movies: camaraderie and idealism and grit and heroism, right? Depending on the approach, of course - anti-war movies are their own subgenre that does different things.
With historical fiction it depends so much on the period/place and perspective..... Bridgerton or Miss Fisher's Murder Mysteries or Downton Abbey or Spartacus or Shogun are doing different things, right?
So I am thinking about what stories creators are already telling that are doing bits of what a Union-perspective Civil War movie does, but not in the specific form of a "Civil War movie" that shows us a lot of soldiers in battle.
posted by brainwane at 7:00 AM on August 19
Outside of historical fantasy, I see no way to portray a combat-focused version of this story to a popular* audience without valorizing the Union Army, which is going to dump buckets of sand into many people's personal gears, to say nothing of the almost inevitability of such a film being read as a white savior narrative, regardless of the creators' intent.
Does it have to be combat focused? I'd be interested in a movie that showed the process of the South deciding to secede, and contrasted the situations of the actual decision makers (the rich who were doing it to protect their own slavery-based wealth) versus the majority of not-rich white Southerners who were sold - or willingly bought on to - a story of how this war was somehow for their sakes. Class loyalty versus versus ethnic/racial loyalty versus cultural/geographical loyalty, and how those are nurtured and manipulated and why. There are so many genres that story could be examined through.
The fighting isn't the interesting or important part of the Civil War, in my opinion. I think focusing on fighting helps obscure how this was a war where most of the fighters were fighting not just against their "brothers" or country but in many cases against their own material interests and for the interests of the elite.
(I think that's also part of why it's so important to Lost Causers to insist the war wasn't about slavery. If it was about slavery then it's not just that all those poor noble heroic Confederate soldiers were racists - they were also dupes, who never stopped to say "wait, we don't truly have a stake in this." Or did they? Were there a lot of regular Southerners refusing to be dragged into a rich men's war? If so there should be movies about them.)
posted by trig at 7:34 AM on August 19 [7 favorites]
Does it have to be combat focused? I'd be interested in a movie that showed the process of the South deciding to secede, and contrasted the situations of the actual decision makers (the rich who were doing it to protect their own slavery-based wealth) versus the majority of not-rich white Southerners who were sold - or willingly bought on to - a story of how this war was somehow for their sakes. Class loyalty versus versus ethnic/racial loyalty versus cultural/geographical loyalty, and how those are nurtured and manipulated and why. There are so many genres that story could be examined through.
The fighting isn't the interesting or important part of the Civil War, in my opinion. I think focusing on fighting helps obscure how this was a war where most of the fighters were fighting not just against their "brothers" or country but in many cases against their own material interests and for the interests of the elite.
(I think that's also part of why it's so important to Lost Causers to insist the war wasn't about slavery. If it was about slavery then it's not just that all those poor noble heroic Confederate soldiers were racists - they were also dupes, who never stopped to say "wait, we don't truly have a stake in this." Or did they? Were there a lot of regular Southerners refusing to be dragged into a rich men's war? If so there should be movies about them.)
posted by trig at 7:34 AM on August 19 [7 favorites]
I'd be interested in a movie that showed the process of the South deciding to secede, and contrasted the situations of the actual decision makers (the rich who were doing it to protect their own slavery-based wealth) versus the majority of not-rich white Southerners who were sold - or willingly bought on to - a story of how this war was somehow for their sakes.
I think one of the problems with the idea of focusing Civil War movies as noble charges to end slavery is that just because one side wanted to preserve it doesn’t mean the other side was actually fighting to end it. Northern bankers held mortgages on Southern slaves, without which the institution could not have continued, and in part supported the war because a seceded South was refusing to pay its slave mortgages. Lincoln wrote,
So like, I would personally love to make a movie about idealistic abolitionists fighting to free the slaves, realizing it might take a war, meanwhile the South seceding to protect their slaves, the North going to war, the abolitionists initially being excited and volunteering for said war in droves, only to find out that no one else in the war cared about freeing or saving the slaves (other than maybe Sherman), their eventual victory and initial heady sense of triumph, and then betrayal as reconstruction was rolled back and the moneyed interests on both sides were the real victors, but ain’t nobody going to see that movie.
posted by corb at 8:10 AM on August 19 [7 favorites]
I think one of the problems with the idea of focusing Civil War movies as noble charges to end slavery is that just because one side wanted to preserve it doesn’t mean the other side was actually fighting to end it. Northern bankers held mortgages on Southern slaves, without which the institution could not have continued, and in part supported the war because a seceded South was refusing to pay its slave mortgages. Lincoln wrote,
If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.A war that had been fought to actually free the slaves would have cared more about the material conditions of the former slaves once it was done.
So like, I would personally love to make a movie about idealistic abolitionists fighting to free the slaves, realizing it might take a war, meanwhile the South seceding to protect their slaves, the North going to war, the abolitionists initially being excited and volunteering for said war in droves, only to find out that no one else in the war cared about freeing or saving the slaves (other than maybe Sherman), their eventual victory and initial heady sense of triumph, and then betrayal as reconstruction was rolled back and the moneyed interests on both sides were the real victors, but ain’t nobody going to see that movie.
posted by corb at 8:10 AM on August 19 [7 favorites]
what is 'Glory'?
it sure as hell glorified war. The whole damned narrative built up to these poor guys finally getting their chance to be annihilated in the sort doomed-from-the-get-go charge directly into enemy guns that this profoundly horrific war of attrition was so good at offering.
posted by philip-random at 8:20 AM on August 19
it sure as hell glorified war. The whole damned narrative built up to these poor guys finally getting their chance to be annihilated in the sort doomed-from-the-get-go charge directly into enemy guns that this profoundly horrific war of attrition was so good at offering.
posted by philip-random at 8:20 AM on August 19
and as for
>24 years old is what Glory is.
35 years old, actually. 1989 — a year that's best understood as the debut of unrelated Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam by Technotronic
when I think of 1989, an entirely other jam comes mind.
posted by philip-random at 8:23 AM on August 19
>24 years old is what Glory is.
35 years old, actually. 1989 — a year that's best understood as the debut of unrelated Belgian techno anthem Pump Up the Jam by Technotronic
when I think of 1989, an entirely other jam comes mind.
posted by philip-random at 8:23 AM on August 19
Outside of historical fantasy, I see no way to portray a combat-focused version of this story to a popular* audience without valorizing the Union Army, which is going to dump buckets of sand into many people's personal gears, to say nothing of the almost inevitability of such a film being read as a white savior narrative, regardless of the creators' intent.
Some of those gears would probably be Native Americans'. Since the Union army was the United States' army that war crime'd its way across every Native American tribe from Plymouth Rock to San Francisco Bay. That behavior did not change during or after the Civil War.
Were there a lot of regular Southerners refusing to be dragged into a rich men's war? If so there should be movies about them.
A confederate deserter was the central premise of Cold Mountain, though I've never seen it. And apparently that was also 20+ years ago now.
Slavery is central to the Civil War. You can't really include nuance like dealing with confederate deserters or Union malfeasance without rubbing shoulders with the Lost Cause crowd and taking the focus off slavery.
Article is paywalled so I don't know if it's mentioned, but who exactly would the audience be for a new Civil War movie? Who wants to see this? Is there some groundswell of desire for a Civil War movie in 2024?
If there's a desire for film to address a white-supremacist aristocracy you can do that in 2024 using contemporary themes and settings. Because as mentioned upthread, it hasn't gone anywhere. Hell, it's front and center on the 2024 ballot.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 8:24 AM on August 19 [5 favorites]
Some of those gears would probably be Native Americans'. Since the Union army was the United States' army that war crime'd its way across every Native American tribe from Plymouth Rock to San Francisco Bay. That behavior did not change during or after the Civil War.
Were there a lot of regular Southerners refusing to be dragged into a rich men's war? If so there should be movies about them.
A confederate deserter was the central premise of Cold Mountain, though I've never seen it. And apparently that was also 20+ years ago now.
Slavery is central to the Civil War. You can't really include nuance like dealing with confederate deserters or Union malfeasance without rubbing shoulders with the Lost Cause crowd and taking the focus off slavery.
Article is paywalled so I don't know if it's mentioned, but who exactly would the audience be for a new Civil War movie? Who wants to see this? Is there some groundswell of desire for a Civil War movie in 2024?
If there's a desire for film to address a white-supremacist aristocracy you can do that in 2024 using contemporary themes and settings. Because as mentioned upthread, it hasn't gone anywhere. Hell, it's front and center on the 2024 ballot.
posted by howbigisthistextfield at 8:24 AM on August 19 [5 favorites]
Bouie says on Bluesky:
"would love to see a civil war movie that centered around the experiences of northern soldiers as they got their first real glance at slavery in practice and came away from it fanatical abolitionists"
following up by citing Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over. I read an excerpt of Manning's book from the publisher's site:
"would love to see a civil war movie that centered around the experiences of northern soldiers as they got their first real glance at slavery in practice and came away from it fanatical abolitionists"
following up by citing Chandra Manning’s What This Cruel War Was Over. I read an excerpt of Manning's book from the publisher's site:
Few white Northerners initially joined the Union rank-and-file specifically to stamp out slavery, and most shared the anti-black prejudices common to their day, especially when the war began. Yet the shock of war itself and soldiers’ interactions with slaves, who in many cases were the first black people northern men had ever met, changed Union troops’ minds fast. At first, white Union soldiers had little trouble separating their ideas about slavery from their racist attitudes and saw no contradiction between demanding an end to slavery even while disputing any notion of black equality or opposing any suggestion of increased rights for black people. Yet as the war dragged on, even attitudes as stubborn as white Union troops’ anti-black prejudices shifted with the tide of the war, sometimes advancing and other times regressing. By the end of the war, white northern opinions about racial equality and civil rights, intractable though they had seemed in 1861, were far more malleable and vulnerable to intense self-scrutiny among Union troops than anyone could have imagined when the war first began.posted by brainwane at 8:28 AM on August 19 [13 favorites]
"Some of those gears would probably be Native Americans'. Since the Union army was the United States' army that war crime'd its way across every Native American tribe from Plymouth Rock to San Francisco Bay. That behavior did not change during or after the Civil War."
howbigisthistextfield, after reading "The Earth is Weeping" by Peter Cozzens about the post Civil War campaigns against Indigenous people led by figures like Sherman, Grant, & Sheridan, I couldn't help but wonder how the experience and traumas of the Civil War coloured those campaigns.
Years of increasingly mechanized butchery definitely changed the mentality of the US Army's leaders. Sherman, in particular, seems to have adopted a mentality that total war was the best, and somehow least cruel, option based on his experiences fighting the Confederates.
I wonder what the 1870s would have been like in the Western US if its military and political leaders weren't so completely traumatized or had a healthy way to deal with it.
posted by Dalekdad at 9:01 AM on August 19 [5 favorites]
howbigisthistextfield, after reading "The Earth is Weeping" by Peter Cozzens about the post Civil War campaigns against Indigenous people led by figures like Sherman, Grant, & Sheridan, I couldn't help but wonder how the experience and traumas of the Civil War coloured those campaigns.
Years of increasingly mechanized butchery definitely changed the mentality of the US Army's leaders. Sherman, in particular, seems to have adopted a mentality that total war was the best, and somehow least cruel, option based on his experiences fighting the Confederates.
I wonder what the 1870s would have been like in the Western US if its military and political leaders weren't so completely traumatized or had a healthy way to deal with it.
posted by Dalekdad at 9:01 AM on August 19 [5 favorites]
Slavery is a third rail, even for someone who made a film about concentration camps.
Quentin, having had his way with the Nazis, requests that you to hold his beer.
posted by The Bellman at 9:18 AM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Quentin, having had his way with the Nazis, requests that you to hold his beer.
posted by The Bellman at 9:18 AM on August 19 [2 favorites]
I think A large problem is not seeing the fight against slavery as a larger movement than what had engaged the Union Army, and at some point you are asking 'what was the civil war?' at what point was the bloodshed related to the abolition from slavery part of a War? when do you start? has it yet ended? and little of this makes for a decent movie with a singular protagonist, which is what hollywood needs.
I think this basic time problem leads you into Science Fiction like Lovecraft Country, which can time travel its way into having singular protagonists to examine these historical forces.
But seconding the recommendation of the Good Lord Bird
It would be interesting to see a movie on the 1811 Slave Revolt, or some of the labor uprisings that led Southern States to pass the Fugitive Slave Acts, or Farragut's seizure of New Orleans and the initial 1862 uprisings that pressured Gen Butler to declare enslaved persons contraband of war, the kind of labor movement film that was banned from Hollywood for a long time.
I find the Reconstruction Era Louisiana fascinating, but we still haven't had the necessary scholarship on that Era to make a good movie.
But you start pushing at the edges of the war, and all of a sudden every Western is a species of civil war movie, full of violent men conflicted by the things they saw and did and could not resolve. Which is why the Collider list has many westerns.
what we really need is a Badass General Tubman film.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:43 AM on
How about a General Tubman Drunk History?
But I agree, we are ripe for a Harriet Tubman film on the Combahee Ferry Raid. I contains all the elements of the War as a labor action, and a labor action that took place under Union command. I suppose there's just not a ton of what most audiences would consider 'soldiering', and the victory was quite one-sided, so inevitably a lot of people would consider it a 'spy movie' and not a 'war movie' if the combatants were laborers and not 'soldiers'
And it's just that so much of the USA is still not quite ready, maybe, for seeing a lot of imagery of burning Plantations, and seeing them burn as as a good thing.
I mean, Atlanta is a place of Black wealth compared to other areas of the South, is that because of Sherman's Total War actions?
I dunno. a good filmmaker could figure it out. I am so glad that the Game of Thrones guys didn't get their crack at it, though.
posted by eustatic at 12:54 PM on August 19 [8 favorites]
I think this basic time problem leads you into Science Fiction like Lovecraft Country, which can time travel its way into having singular protagonists to examine these historical forces.
But seconding the recommendation of the Good Lord Bird
It would be interesting to see a movie on the 1811 Slave Revolt, or some of the labor uprisings that led Southern States to pass the Fugitive Slave Acts, or Farragut's seizure of New Orleans and the initial 1862 uprisings that pressured Gen Butler to declare enslaved persons contraband of war, the kind of labor movement film that was banned from Hollywood for a long time.
I find the Reconstruction Era Louisiana fascinating, but we still haven't had the necessary scholarship on that Era to make a good movie.
But you start pushing at the edges of the war, and all of a sudden every Western is a species of civil war movie, full of violent men conflicted by the things they saw and did and could not resolve. Which is why the Collider list has many westerns.
what we really need is a Badass General Tubman film.
posted by rum-soaked space hobo at 1:43 AM on
How about a General Tubman Drunk History?
But I agree, we are ripe for a Harriet Tubman film on the Combahee Ferry Raid. I contains all the elements of the War as a labor action, and a labor action that took place under Union command. I suppose there's just not a ton of what most audiences would consider 'soldiering', and the victory was quite one-sided, so inevitably a lot of people would consider it a 'spy movie' and not a 'war movie' if the combatants were laborers and not 'soldiers'
And it's just that so much of the USA is still not quite ready, maybe, for seeing a lot of imagery of burning Plantations, and seeing them burn as as a good thing.
I mean, Atlanta is a place of Black wealth compared to other areas of the South, is that because of Sherman's Total War actions?
I dunno. a good filmmaker could figure it out. I am so glad that the Game of Thrones guys didn't get their crack at it, though.
posted by eustatic at 12:54 PM on August 19 [8 favorites]
we are ripe for a Harriet Tubman film on the Combahee Ferry Raid
Harriet (2019) is very good (Cynthia Erivo is incredible as Harriet Tubman), and it features the Combahee River Raid.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:10 PM on August 19 [5 favorites]
Harriet (2019) is very good (Cynthia Erivo is incredible as Harriet Tubman), and it features the Combahee River Raid.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:10 PM on August 19 [5 favorites]
It took the south a few decades to catch up and overtake, presumably because of their shattered economy.
Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History
Survey Identifies Correlation Between Confederate Monuments and Lynchings
posted by kirkaracha at 1:34 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Confederate Statues Were Never Really About Preserving History
An overwhelming majority of Confederate memorials weren’t erected in the years directly following the Civil War. Instead, most were put up decades later. Nor were they built just to commemorate fallen generals and soldiers; they were installed as symbols of white supremacy during periods of U.S. history when Black Americans’ civil rights were aggressively under attack.The Lost Cause and Confederate memory
Survey Identifies Correlation Between Confederate Monuments and Lynchings
posted by kirkaracha at 1:34 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Maybe the great Civil War movie will be made by someone who isn't American.
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 2:28 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 2:28 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Glory hasn't aged well in the age of greater recognition of white saviorism narratives. Like, there are a whole slew of actual historic Black figures who are pretty cool from the 54th (and its sister regiment, the 55th) but instead we get a bunch of conflated characters in the service of hyping up how noble Shaw was for leading his regiment to slaughter.
posted by TwoStride at 4:35 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
posted by TwoStride at 4:35 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Harriet (2019) is very good (Cynthia Erivo is incredible as Harriet Tubman), and it features the Combahee River Raid.
posted by kirkaracha at 1:10 PM
Thank you. You are correct. Why is this not considered a Civil War movie?
Do we need a movie where the Union burns down Tara, in particular?
posted by eustatic at 5:06 PM on August 19 [1 favorite]
posted by kirkaracha at 1:10 PM
Thank you. You are correct. Why is this not considered a Civil War movie?
Do we need a movie where the Union burns down Tara, in particular?
posted by eustatic at 5:06 PM on August 19 [1 favorite]
Harriet is definitely a Civil War movie in my book. It's about the central cause of the war, shows how it affected enslaved persons, and shows an enslaved person rising up, leading others to freedom, and killing some Confederates.
By contrast, some of the movies on the list I posted earlier are what I'd call more Civil War-adjacent. Dances with Wolves (1990), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), Rio Lobo (1970), and Seraphim Falls (2006) are about people who were in the Civil War but deal mostly with their lives after.
Most of the rest of the list—Cold Mountain' (2003), The Conspirator (2010; you help assassinate one president...), The General (1926), Gone with the Wind (1939), Ride With the Devil (1999), and Shenandoah' (1965)—are about Confederates or Confederate sympathizers.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:20 PM on August 19
By contrast, some of the movies on the list I posted earlier are what I'd call more Civil War-adjacent. Dances with Wolves (1990), The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976), Rio Lobo (1970), and Seraphim Falls (2006) are about people who were in the Civil War but deal mostly with their lives after.
Most of the rest of the list—Cold Mountain' (2003), The Conspirator (2010; you help assassinate one president...), The General (1926), Gone with the Wind (1939), Ride With the Devil (1999), and Shenandoah' (1965)—are about Confederates or Confederate sympathizers.
posted by kirkaracha at 5:20 PM on August 19
so inevitably a lot of people would consider it a 'spy movie' and not a 'war movie' if the combatants were laborers and not 'soldiers'
Uh, I don't know about the rest of you but the thought of a civil war spy thriller perked me right the hell up. A black man or woman as the protagonist, posing as a slave, having to endure treatment as a slave, conflicts between intervening in a whipping or some other horrible thing and completing the mission, dealing with a variety of white attitudes towards black people and slaves, infiltrating plantations...
I'm here for it.
posted by VTX at 5:23 PM on August 19
Uh, I don't know about the rest of you but the thought of a civil war spy thriller perked me right the hell up. A black man or woman as the protagonist, posing as a slave, having to endure treatment as a slave, conflicts between intervening in a whipping or some other horrible thing and completing the mission, dealing with a variety of white attitudes towards black people and slaves, infiltrating plantations...
I'm here for it.
posted by VTX at 5:23 PM on August 19
(I haven't seen Harriet - in case anyone's wondering why Bouie didn't account for it, I figure it's because he thought it was terrible.)
Alyssa Cole has written a trilogy of romance novels that some of you may be interested in! It's called The Loyal League:
Alyssa Cole has written a trilogy of romance novels that some of you may be interested in! It's called The Loyal League:
a thrilling Civil War-set trilogy centered on a secret society of Black spies working to topple the Confederacy and ensure that the United States lives up to its promise of Life, Liberty, and Happiness. All of the suspense and adventure of an espionage thriller paired with swoonworthy romance and hidden American history...The first book is An Extraordinary Union:
Elle Burns is a former slave with a passion for justice and an eidetic memory. Trading in her life of freedom in Massachusetts, she returns to the indignity of slavery in the South—to spy for the Union Army.posted by brainwane at 5:33 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Malcolm McCall is a detective for Pinkerton’s Secret Service. Subterfuge is his calling, but he’s facing his deadliest mission yet—risking his life to infiltrate a Rebel enclave in Virginia.
Two undercover agents who share a common cause—and an undeniable attraction—Malcolm and Elle join forces when they discover a plot that could turn the tide of the war in the Confederacy’s favor. Caught in a tightening web of wartime intrigue, and fighting a fiery and forbidden love, Malcolm and Elle must make their boldest move to preserve the Union at any cost—even if it means losing each other . . .
As I understand it (Confederate Reckoning), there were people who were enslaved, not posing as slaves, who were passing information to the Union. Slaveowners would talk about about Confederate plans right in front of the the slaves because why not?
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:11 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
posted by Nancy Lebovitz at 6:11 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Upon review, Harriet doesn't dramatize the River Raid itself, which, y'know. the potential is still out there.
posted by eustatic at 6:35 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
posted by eustatic at 6:35 PM on August 19 [2 favorites]
Upon review, Harriet doesn't dramatize the River Raid itself
Yeah, I really want to see that raid treated like a real Hollywood war drama.
I also want Robert Smalls' escape on the big screen.
posted by suelac at 8:42 PM on August 19 [4 favorites]
Yeah, I really want to see that raid treated like a real Hollywood war drama.
I also want Robert Smalls' escape on the big screen.
posted by suelac at 8:42 PM on August 19 [4 favorites]
Tarantino never really dealt with the subject of concentration camps, and couldn't. Django might also be complicated by white savior syndrome. Maybe the Watchmen series was the first real bit of pop culture to deal with the complexities of righting wrongs, and what America is built upon, though it is highly fictionalized on its surface. Roots might be a better work. It's a tough ask for a complex subject to be rendered down to a work of an hour and a half, or two hours even, so film might not be the best medium for this, as compared with longer series.
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:55 PM on August 19
posted by They sucked his brains out! at 10:55 PM on August 19
I've wondered if 12 Years a Slave was written in reaction to Django. It came so soon afterward, but I can't be sure of the timing.
posted by ishmael at 11:11 PM on August 19
posted by ishmael at 11:11 PM on August 19
posted by BWA at 6:49 AM on August 19 [1 favorite]
Everything about this comment made me frysquint.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 10:53 PM on August 20 [1 favorite]
Everything about this comment made me frysquint.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 10:53 PM on August 20 [1 favorite]
« Older There is a gendered side for buttons on clothing | Conservation detection dog Oakley having a ball... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by bq at 6:02 PM on August 18 [11 favorites]