| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Theresa |
Posted - September 08 2005 : 3:40:41 PM
www.thewarthatmadeamerica.org
Just FYI! |
| 24 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - February 01 2006 : 09:32:20 AM
As to the Native side of things, this is a post from another board. It is by Mike Galban who is very experienced on the Iroquois side of things and works at Ganondagan, and was hired to work on the film.
quote:
There is only so much that the directors will listen to. You can give them specs, pallettes, ideas but in the end they do as they wish. If they truley listened to who they hired to help out then those silly breechclouts, and all red warriors would have been nixed for sure.
I was hired to do many things on the production including two dance scenes, language, principle NA actors clothing (headdresses, quillwork, roaches, etc) - I cannot and will not vouch for much else. The two dance scenes we did went off great. I used simple social songs as well as "wasase" for them. They were accurate and matched the historical events they portrayed without going into ceremonial waters. The one dance scene that Jerry Waterman did came off abit different. I wasn't part of that one but him in his "Apache" gear and huge rawhide drum was not my doing. LOL.
I will defend my own work as accurate yet when the directors and dept. head go off the leash - I can only duck and cover.
Mike
Also, at Lake George, was Dieskau even mentioned?
Robert Rogers is mentioned if EVERY book concerning the F&I war. I don't much care for him myself, but he was a most important part of the war, and left a lasting impression that is even felt today.
Once, just once, I would like to see a film done on the War from the French (good guys) perspective. I had hopes for Nouvelle France, but they worked around it, probably to save a lot of money in extras and props.
And I know this is may be just a mite picky, but when talking about Daniel-Hyacinthe-Marie Lienard de Beaujeu, the commander at the Monongahéla, Graham Green sounded like he was saying "Leonard Beaujour". |
| SgtMunro |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 8:50:49 PM
I had a wee bit of hesitation in posting my thoughts on the picture, since most of you already know my opinion of the 'War For Empire / F&IW 250th' folks. Suffice it to say that my thoughts mirror those of Fitz and Sergeant-Major Malcolm. That being, I also was very disappointed to see a production which was heralded as a 'local effort' by my hometown newspapers, miss out on very critical aspects of local history. For instance, little or no mention was given of such important events like the Kittaning Raid of 1756 (Which was planned and conducted by Pennsylvanians), Grant's Defeat of 1758 (Where the lion's share of the fighting and dying was done by the valiant men of the 77th Highland Regiment of Foote), The Battle of Bushy Run in 1763 (A very critical engagement; for if Colonel Bouquet had lost, Pittsburgh would not be known by that name today, because it would have been another 20-30 years before it would have been settled again), among many other important historical figures and events (Like Major Robert Rogers, as Fitz pointed out).
This all being said, there are some positive sides to this movie. If your interests are that of the early public carrer of George Washington, or of an overview of the French and Indian war and its relationship to the causes of the American Revolution, then this movie may be for you.
Just my farthing's worth on the subject...
YMH&OS,
The Sarge
|
| Sjt. Malcolm MacWilliam |
Posted - January 31 2006 : 6:22:25 PM
Fellow Mohicanlanders.....well, I"ve been away again for such a long time, but got on last night to make contact with my brother Sjt., Duncan. Got back on this afternoon and saw that there were posts about War that Made America....following is a post I made on yahoo's F and I War List. Just my humble opinion. Slainte'....and Pax Aye! Malcolm
(I was appalled at the absence of Highlanders....how could they!!!??)
Aye, I'll be the first to bite and take a stab at what I thought about Parts 3 and 4. Whereas I enjoyed parts 1 and 2, last night's
"parts" became tedious and for me (sure, I am a Highlander) skipped very important parts of the War. Altogether I noticed 5
Highlanders portrayed....two on the docks (maybe it was just one
shown twice!) as the army shipped out to Ft. Ti; and three as they assaulted the log stockades at Ft. Ti. Where were the other 495
or so?? Also, I am sorely distressed at no Highlanders present as they "touched" on the Forbes Expedition. Instead of the
characters of Bouquet, St. Clair, Grant, etc....it was
Washington this and Washington that. The Forbes Expedition
included about 1300 of the 1st Highland Battalion (77th). Not
even one was shown or mentioned. SHAME! I am very disappointed.
And, they spent time on Pontiac, but NO time on Bushy Run....Shame, shame!!
Positives: In my humble opinion, I believe Native portrayals were
excellent.....but my forest brethern will have the last word on that.
I believe a good transition was made between 7 Years War and
AWI, showing cause and effect...ALTHOUGH, I did not need all
that. I would rather all time spent would have been on 7YW only.
Let me think.....that's all the positives at this time!!
Negatives: Uniforms were VERY ill fitting. AND, only one Brit
uniform was shown mostly...over and over...red with the buff or yellowish
facings (48th of Foote) There were a few VA militia and 60 RA.
And, what were others' thourhgts on the one uniform??... (I know
our French comrades complained about wrong uniforms in first
two episodes). AND, again, Washington played a part in 7YW,
but the last half seemed to be a Washington Fest.
As an elem. principal (in my 21st century life), I will still purchase
the video for my grades 4 and 5 to watch. I believe it has a lot of
worth, if only for the dates and places, Native portrayals,
beginning of 7YW and how it led to AWI.
My twa pennies!!
Malcolm MacWm., Sjt. Major, 77th GrenCoy |
| qasimoto |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 10:52:28 AM
Not all our Founding Fathers were necessarily St. Francis of Assisi's. I've read that Alexander Hamilton was wanted by the English on a smuggling charge and that, if apprehended, he may well have hanged; hence, a successful American Revolution would be for him a means of escape of an extremely adverse judgement. I've also read that the incitors of revolution, particularly in New England, stood to gain enormously financially from success of a revolution--see, in the preceding posts and in PBS's WTMA, evidence of Washington's attempt at land grabs west of the Alleghenies in violaton of English regulatory law and of an earlier English-Indian treaty.
I regret that I have failed to annotate and save sources of the above, I'd read them years ago and never thought to record the sources so I don't really know how accurate or unimpeachable they may be or have been. Perhaps other members may have some good input on these, either pro or con.
And another thing, contrary to all Americans who have learned their history in an American graded or primary school: just why should NOT have the English attempted to regain some of their money spent in the F&I portion of the 7-years "World" war, started after all by a young and inexperienced American named "GW" in an ill-advised attack on a nighttime camp of French negotiators, not soldiers, excepting perhaps a few escorts? Granted that much of it was spent in fighting the French, a considerable portion was also expended in defense of American colonials against French and Indians. England was financially on the ropes after the costs of that war, some of the money had been spent in our protection (from accounts given George III, probably most of it); why should we NOT have paid for our fair share of those costs through taxation as how else could it be collected? Has always appeared to me that we were at least a little short-sighted and ungrateful in our rejection of ALL English taxation in that period (e.g., "Boston Tea Party"); they had extended themselves for us, what might have been our problem in extending ourselves to at least partially cover their costs in having done so? Granted that George III could have far better explained his case to us, it appears to me that our agitators of revolution may have been, at least in part, unfairly taking advantage of an opportunity presented by a lack of full and forthright communication from the Crown. And I suspect that most of these agitators were focusing on personal financial gain more than some sort of altruistic patriotism; they were, after all, English citizens and had already gained from that status just as earlier did St. Paul of Tarsus, a Roman citizen by virtue of having been born in a province of Rome.
But that would certainly not play well in a primary or even secondary American school history curriculum.
Qasimoto, a forthright loyalist engineer who digresses. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 10:02:31 AM
Washington was a really complex character. He was at once a land-grabbing speculator, a social climber, a fearless leader in battle, and a politician to the core. In later years it seems that the more people thought of him, the higher standards he set for himself. It is hard to imagine Washington at the Temple and Fraunces Tavern as the same Washington at Jumonville's Glen and Fort Necessity. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 08:30:30 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fitzhugh Williams
He did know that Waters was the one who fired the first shots, so he was, in a sense, saving Waters life.
Indeed. And that gives us even more understanding as to why he was so highly regarded by his men. They felt they could depend on him. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 01:05:31 AM
I don't think Washington even knew it (the loaded musket thing) . He did know that Waters was the one who fired the first shots, so he was, in a sense, saving Waters life. Waters later moved to SC and was prominent in the Rev War. Became a Colonel. Lots of descendents. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 8:33:23 PM
Then it has to be assumed it had no bearing on Washington's decesion/statement I'd say. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 6:08:59 PM
It would be my guess that at that time a lot of loaded muskets being held, on both sides. That one would have been aimed at Washington's back would have gone unnoticed. There were other concerns.
And WTMA failed to mentioned James Mackay and the SC Independent Company being at Fort Necessity. Mackay was in joint command with Washington and his name appears first on the surrender document. It would have been nice if he received a little credit, or blame. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 4:48:25 PM
I would think that anyone holding a loaded weapon on a commanding officer, - would have an "extremely difficult life" after it was discovered. Not something that would/could be ignored. After Washington got thru with him, -he may have had second thoughts about his decision. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 1:37:23 PM
Interesting story, Fitz. I am assuming that Major Washington was not aware, at the time he told his little fib, that Waters had that musket aimed at him. Just another example, to me, of his "charmed" life (or of the hand of God upon his shoulder!) that allowed him to reach and fulfill his destiny. |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 10:06:52 AM
While we are on the subject of F&I and George Washington (six degrees and all that), here is a little story that I heard recently.
quote:
Phil [Philemon] Waters bore a conspicuous part in these wars and by his activity incurred the especial hatred of the French and British commanders against whom he served. It is preserved as one of the traditions of the family that at the surrender of Fort Necessity, where Colonel Waters killed two French soldiers and three Indians, a special demand was made on Major Washington, commander of the Colonial troops, by the French commander for Colonel Waters, but that Major Washington refused to honor the demand and Colonel Waters escaped the vengeance of the wrath Frenchmen to do valiant services for the colonies in their subsequent revolt against the mother country.
The story goes that he, Waters, was a sentinel and fired on the French without warning when they approached. The French commander, Coulon de Villiers, I believe, insisted that the perpetrator be given up to them (and subsequently turned over to the Indians). Washington told the French that the man who committed the act had been killed in the fighting. At the time, Waters was said to be standing behind Washington with a loaded musket, and had Washington turned him over to the French and Indians, he would have shot him on the spot.
|
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 08:38:39 AM
Gled to hear you enjoyed it WW. I very much agree with you about GW. Up until I had actually read up on the guy, - many things I had seen were not all the flattering. Truth is, I wish we had more like him today! Unfortunately I didn't get to see the movie. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 27 2006 : 08:31:50 AM
Well, I have to admit that part of the reason I enjoyed it so much was because of the fact that they focused on George Washington so much. As some of you may know, I have done some reading about this man and I have been amazed to find that he is so much more than just the picture of an old man on our dollar bill. He has become one of my heroes of that time.
Agreed. He was not presented in the most favorable light. And rightly so. He made mistakes. However, the mistakes of a very young man who was not yet tested in war went a very long way toward making him the mature, courageous, wise, much-loved leader who won a war and helped to create and guide a new nation. And all of those he was, and did do.
Yes, there were so many more people and events that could have/should have been covered. They could have expanded it into 6 or 8 episodes, instead of 4, and had plenty of material to work with. I actually was a bit perplexed as to why they included the tale of Mary Jemison. I'm not sure that her story, while extremely interesting, is directly related to the F & I War. White captives were taken and adopted, killed, or ransomed for several centuries, independently of any named war.
All in all, setting nitpicking aside  , I thought it was a great vehicle to possibly introduce thousands of viewers to a very important war in our history, who may otherwise have known nothing about it. Who knows? Maybe some of those people will actually pick up a book and begin to learn more about it! |
| qasimoto |
Posted - January 26 2006 : 7:09:11 PM
Right, even Sir Wm. Johnson barely made it in and with virtually no credit for his extensive wilderness travels, negotiations with various Indian tribes extending for days, and management of other woods couriers over a long period of time. And too much of George Washington, though some of that was necessary to show continuity into the American Revolution--but it sure was not complimentary to GW.
As you say, enjoyable but not up to the caliber of LOTM.
Qasimoto |
| Fitzhugh Williams |
Posted - January 26 2006 : 6:52:04 PM
No mention at all of Rogers, Levis, McKay, St. Foy, the Grant expedition in SC, and way, way to much Washington. But better than anything else I have seen about the 18th Century on TV. I ordered the DVD (from Amazon, not PBS, it's cheaper). Good entertainment, but not LOTM. |
| Seamus |
Posted - January 26 2006 : 1:25:13 PM
Kelly has already ordered him a larger hat, WW! |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 26 2006 : 12:56:57 PM
OK, all you F & I War fans out there... what are your thoughts about this production?
Speaking as a novice re-enactor (oh, I do love saying that!), and one who is just beginning to really study that war, I thought it was quite well done. I'm sure that those of you who are much more knowledgeable than I picked up on some factual errors and unauthentic clothing items. I can only speak for the white women's clothing, which I thought was quite good. I did not see, for example, one single farby pirate bodice! And it looked as though they were all wearing proper stays. Huzzah!
I thought the acting was pretty good, except that Montcalm's French accent sort of came and went on occasion. Graham Greene, of course, did a marvelous job as narrator/host.
BTW, Seamus' and my friend, and fellow Regiment member, Paul was very clearly seen in both the opening and closing (reading of the Declaration) scenes. In fact, as the camera moved along the row of soldiers, he had a full-face close-up in the closing scene! I suppose there will be no talking to him now... right Seamus?
|
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 4:29:49 PM
Thanks WW, - will mark it down indeed! ;) |
| alikws |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 3:05:14 PM
'clash of empires' has a book of some of the exibits, some not seen in print before, which was usefull...
also this months 'muzzleloader' has an article on the making of WTMA, already have tapes ready to go,
some battle footage was shot at boones homestead grand encampment, see what made the final cut...
|
| Kurt |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 08:43:12 AM
That "Clash of Empires" exhibit has great firelocks, crockery, clothes, and other artifacts to examine. The dioramas are nice. Well worth a visit. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 11 2006 : 08:22:39 AM
Hey guys,
Just a reminder that this begins airing on PBS stations on Wednesday, January 18th, 9 PM Eastern time. The second part will be on the following Wednesday evening, Jan. 25th.
I am really looking forward to this. While I was in Pittsburgh, visiting the wonderful "Clash of Empires" exhibit, I was able to see a preview of this program. It looks to be very good. Besides, I have a friend who may be in some of the battle scenes! (And Seamus may know even more guys.)
So check your local listings, mark your calendars and set your VCRs! Be sure to check out the link above for more information.
|
| Theresa |
Posted - September 10 2005 : 07:57:09 AM
I don't know if it states on this website or not, but they rented some of the cloting from LOTM for this movie. We get a great little magazine in the library, "Cobblestone", and there was a really good article in it about this movie that stated that. |
| Monadnock Guide |
Posted - September 09 2005 : 09:30:27 AM
That sounds excellent Theresa, - hope the plan to air it in early 2006, (or sooner) works out. |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
