<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Save your Money
Review: 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Somewhat Plausible
Review: 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.
Rating:
Summary: Save your money, rent a few DVD's and make up your own mind
Review: 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?!?! ...
Rating: 
Summary: How movies reflect changing perspectives on our history
Review: 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.
<< 1 >>
| 
