|
Note: You must be registered in order to post a reply.
To register, click here. Registration is FREE!
|
| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Diana |
Posted - December 31 2002 : 2:18:53 PM
That is, the one on Benedict Arnold. It is scheduled to air on January 13, 2003.
I would be interested in hearing what you think of it.
My question was: why they chose Kelsey Grammer to portray Washington instead of Jeff Daniels.
Happy New Year's everyone!!!
Diana |
| 25 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - January 18 2003 : 08:00:57 AM
Yep, thanks TK, it was the treatment in Rabble I was thinking of.
I re-read Oliver Wiswell a few months ago. The same copy I first read nearly forty years ago. It had been sitting in the back of my trunk since we cleared out my dad's house a few years back.
Still a very good read. The first time though, had an eye-opening impact for someone raised with the standard patriot's-eye view of the Revolution. Of course, I was never one to accept the status quo as gospel, and the rest of that decade turned the world upside down.
I'd love to see this one made into a movie by someone who knows what they're about. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 17 2003 : 7:11:49 PM
Oh, Super! I can't wait to begin! It takes me a while to get through a book, due mainly to time constraints, but I will let you know what I think.
Ciao.
WW |
| Two Kettles |
Posted - January 17 2003 : 1:10:28 PM
WW,
I think you're in for a real treat. Although he's not talked about much today, Roberts was considered one of the finest American writers of his day (30s-50s). And, in some cases, his historical fiction was more accurrate than the "straight" history being written at the time. I read "Arundel" and am just amazed that it was his first novel - although he had been a nonfiction writer/journalist for a number of years. He really had a knack for storytelling.
Two Kettles |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 16 2003 : 08:35:08 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Scott,
"Kenneth Roberts did a good job with Arnold. Was it Rabble in Arms? (It's been a long time.)"
Originally posted by Two Kettles
"Roberts' fascinating defense/explanation of Arnold comes from RABBLE..."
I am glad to read these comments, because I recently ordered paperback versions, from Amazon, of Arundel and Rabble In Arms, hoping that they would be something I would enjoy. It sounds as though they will be. As soon as I finish reading Howard Fast's Bunker Hill (formerly published as Seven Days in June), I will begin! |
| Two Kettles |
Posted - January 15 2003 : 4:28:08 PM
Scott,
"Kenneth Roberts did a good job with Arnold. Was it Rabble in Arms? (It's been a long time.)"
Actually, Roberts featured Arnold in three of his novels:
ARUNDEL - the story of the March to Quebec and the siege;
RABBLE IN ARMS - the two years from the retreat from Quebec to Saratoga;
OLIVER WISWELL - the story of the Revolution from the point of view of a young loyalist. He meets Arnold after he changes sides.
Roberts' fascinating defense/explanation of Arnold comes from RABBLE, and if I remember right he goes into more detail in his autobiography I WANTED TO WRITE. Although few, if any, historians entirely buy Roberts' arguments, they were truly revolutionary (pun intended) for their day, and still give one food for thought.
TWO KETTLES |
| Seamus |
Posted - January 15 2003 : 08:33:12 AM
Yep! WW--
........or have the choice of:
1) Watching the thing, or,
2) Having a sharp stick poked in your eye. |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 15 2003 : 08:28:36 AM
Sure, Rich... give it a go! That is if you enjoy being:
Frustrated...
Confused...
Bored...
Or
Angry!
It will fulfill all of those for you! |
| richfed |
Posted - January 15 2003 : 06:06:26 AM
So ... you think I should try & catch this one, then?!?  Sounds like a good one!  |
| Fitz Williams |
Posted - January 15 2003 : 02:32:17 AM
When it comes to closing a frizzen and pulling the gun to full cock, there is just no excuse for this kind of inaccuracy. Especially when the scene will be used for a close up.
When it comes to throwing hawks, etc., it's hard to beat Russell Means and the blue hockey stick! |
| Sjt. Malcolm MacWilliam |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 10:08:21 PM
Daire....but you see it does make a big difference. For example....in the Arnold movie, they showed continental troops either in all blue and buff or at one point, Pennsylvania troops in brown and white (or something like that). Now, consider doing it right and making it a mismatched affair of different uniforms, rifleman frocks, some civilian clothing, tricorns, voyager caps, cocked hats, etc.....what will the public learn? That the continentals did not have good uniforms, they were not well dressed, etc. There is a visual learning experience that you do NOT get when you put them all in a uniform, albeit wrong colored also. Another point, it takes no more money to put actors in "real clothing" as opposed to what Hollywood thinks it should be. It only shows Hollywood's ignorance or lack of interest in doing things right. Here's another example. In "Arnold", at one point, they showed Peggy in bloomers with a short blouse or shift or something (when she was trying to starve herself). WRONG! No bloomers or short blouses at this time. BUT, she sure looked good!! So, for the sake of "looking sexy", they put her in the wrong clothing. It shows what Holly wood thinks of the public.....Sexy is better than right!! My point is.....if it takes no more money to put the actors in correct clothing (and it really shouldn't) why not do it? There is a chance that some of the public will pick up something visually. I guess it's because Holly wood doesn't care and they think we shouldn't care. I do...as an educator and reenactor. OK, enough....just peeves me that Hollywood does what they want with no care for education and authenticity and they think the public is stupid!! (Why couldn't they have filmed battle of Quebec in some snow? Why couldn't they have had Arnold on a horse at Saratoga? Why? Why? Why? "They" are lazy and have no care for history!! ) Sjt. "POed" MacWm., 77th Highlanders, Grenadier Company |
| daire |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 9:05:22 PM
Okay, I'm going to play the devil's advocate in regard to costuming/real clothing/dressed...
While re-enactors, historians and/or people just interested in it may cringe at inaccurately dressed actors in movies, the rest of the population probably outnumbers you in not knowing enough. And although some, like myself, realize that they may not be costumed/dressed exactly as they would have been in the eras being portrayed, we wouldn't be able to tell you the differences (the Green Dragoons in The Patriot not withstanding, even I got that...but they had a reason for using red and green jackets, I think it was in the Smithsonian article).
I haven't watched Benedict Arnold yet, but I guess my reasoning for studios not getting the clothes exactly accurate is that most of us wouldn't know the difference and do it for the sake of the moviegoers/watchers being able to distinguish enough to understand who's with who. Sadly, some people in this country aren't as well educated or rounded to understand that militia wouldn't have uniform clothes, and would have mismatched or their own clothes.
That's my peace. 
|
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 7:55:49 PM
"reenactors usually refer to "real clothing" as being "dressed" (I'm going to the reenactment "dressed"....Are you going "dressed" to that event?)...some call it garb, some call it "real clothing"....all you have to do is touch and smell what I wear (and what my cousin Many Flags wears) and you know it isn't costume!!"
Ahhh! I see. What you wear in the 18th century is your "real clothing", and what you wear in the 21st century is your "costume"! Got it! Thanks, Sarj!
By the way, I'll pass on the Scratch and Sniff test, thank you. I've seen enough of you guys to know that it would probably make my eyes water! |
| Scott Bubar |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 6:14:05 PM
zzzzzzzzz ...
Then I woke up in the middle of the night. It was on again.
Thought I'd give it another shot.
zzzzzzzzzz ...
Well, at least I got a good night's sleep for a change.
Kenneth Roberts did a good job with Arnold. Was it Rabble in Arms? (It's been a long time.) |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 1:31:18 PM
Sorry Sjt. (Malcolm "Cybil" MacWilliam, Many Personalities, OOPS -...I mean Flags, of the Schizophreniac Nation  ),
I was assuming there were no television devices in the 1700's and just got carried away - Please forgive my familiar reference to your descendent. Must have been playing with my gadgets too long! 
And Seamus, I never saw The Crossing , so I can't picture Jeff Daniels as GW either, but loved him as Chamberlain and can't wait for Gods and Generals to come out. Speaking of "G and G" (I suppose GAG would not be a fitting acronym here), I read the other day that Stephen Lang was actually playing "Stonewall" Jackson, not Pickett in this film as I had previously posted (assumed from the previews).
And Boys ...I do hope there are plans being made for a trip to the southern colonies early summer. I'd hate for you to miss this years "GADGET"!!!!
GG |
| Seamus |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 12:48:11 PM
Well, folks...........I must say there was one thing that I did enjoy last night as I watched the show......my popcorn. Yup! That's about it.
Actually, 1st Sjt. MacWilliam (he's me cousin, ye know!)said it all above, and he is absolutely right, so I'll not rehash it here.
Jeff Daniels was George Washington????? HUH!!Wh..when???? Wh..where??? HUH!! I thought he was Joshua Chamberlain!!
|
| Sjt. Malcolm MacWilliam |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 11:40:15 AM
First.....WW, reenactors usually refer to "real clothing" as being "dressed" (I'm going to the reenactment "dressed"....Are you going "dressed" to that event?)...some call it garb, some call it "real clothing"....all you have to do is touch and smell what I wear (and what my cousin Many Flags wears) and you know it isn't costume!!
As to inaccuracies...WOW...Battle of Quebec was fought in Dec. 1775 in about two feet of snow, Arnold led troops at Saratoga on horseback and was shot while on horseback, Andre' was NOT hung in sight of Peggy but later after being jailed (even spent a while in Carlisle right over the Mt. from where I call home!), uniforms were REALLY bad...blue and buff was ONLY used for Washington's close aides not the whole Continental army AND you would never see a mass of Continentals in one uniform..they were shabby, different coats, different hats, etc....pantaloons (although Peggy looked fetching in them!) are NOT 18th century clothing.....I could go on and on. Muskets must be cocked and loaded to fire, cockades were not matching velveteen colors of the officers' sashes....Ok, ENOUGH!! I will admit that there was a hint of the decision-making which Arnold went through to become a traitor...and Peggy did a good job...(the male reenactor jury is in on her...YUP, she did good and looked good!!)...Wigs were bad, British uniforms...well, we won't even go there!! Battle of Saratoga was not a fortification of picket fencing from 84 Lumber....ARGHHH.....OK< I said I would quit. I'll take LOTM, with it's few flaws...anyday!! Pax Aye! Sjt. MacWm. (Hey, GG, who is MARK!!)
|
| Chris |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 10:14:47 AM
Hi Rich,
Basically, all you missed was two hours of frustration. Without a whole lot of historical background, I was totally lost, and it sounds like those with background knowledge were even more frustrated than I was. Too bad.
Chris |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 09:37:21 AM
 LOL!! Oh, I am so glad! I was almost afraid to post, but I am so relieved to be able to admit that I was quite disappointed in the whole thing... Egad!
You each said things that I agree with:
Sarj, even I could tell that there was bad costuming; Sometimes the dialog bordered on comical (I would have to watch it again to cite examples); not sure about the historical inaccuracies since I am still learning on that point...
Theresa, although Kelsey did pretty well... some scenes were better than others... (I especially liked the scene at Valley Forge, when he was talking to Arnold about his men/boys/soldiers who remained loyal to him)... I also still prefer Jeff Daniels' portrayal.
Gadget Girl, I thought perhaps it was my 55-year-old-growing-feebler-by-the-minute-brain... but I also had trouble following what was going on in some places. In fact, I think that if I hadn't had a little previous knowledge, I would have been totally lost! I had trouble keeping track of characters: I don't think they really actually identified Reed by name! (At least I think that is who that was... they really made him evil, didn't they?)
However, I respectfully disagree with you on Aidan Quinn. I felt he was the one redeeming feature of the movie. I enjoyed his performance very much. I also enjoyed the young lady who portrayed Peggy. Her false wide-eyed innocence was well done, I thought.
Too, too bad! So many possibilities! Such a disappointment!
P.S. Sarj, what word can we use to refer to your "costume"?? Is it simply your "uniform"? Your "dress"... although that brings to mind an interesting visual... |
| Gadget Girl |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 07:48:28 AM
Don't know that I can pick out inaccuracies in "costuming" Mark, don't know enough, but I have to agree with you on this one. I didn't care for the movie EXCEPT for Kelsey Grammer's portrayal of Washington. I really felt a little GW in it. As for Aidan Quinn, whom I usually love, his was a forced, pitiful portrayal. I also had trouble following what was supposed to be going on, re; Reed and Arnold - too much left out there. Not knowing the story at all though of BA (I know - shame on me!!!), I will considered myself a tad more educated there.
GG |
| Theresa |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 07:44:13 AM
I'll take Jeff Daniels over Kelsey Grammar. Must admit I fell asleep about half way through.
|
| richfed |
Posted - January 14 2003 : 06:28:44 AM
Well, I lied ... too exhausted, and hit the sack early. Sounds like maybe I didn't miss all that much? Malcolm, you're harsh! :) |
| Sjt. Malcolm MacWilliam |
Posted - January 13 2003 : 10:59:25 PM
It did not take long for the jury to come in with a verdict on the "movie" B. Arnold. The Rev War List (forum for us Rev. War reenactors) was abuzz within minutes after the "movie" began. Before looking at Rev War List, I said to my wife...."The colonials will have a field day with this one". I was not wrong. The first posts were from colonial reenactors who said after a few minutes of watching that they turned it off, retched, stuck sticks in their eyes, etc.....woooo hoooo!! I must apologize for sounding like a broken record.....but it was terrible to watch. I can't even begin to list all the inaccuracies, historical wrongs, very very bad "costuming" (reenactors don't use the "c" word), bad dialog, etc., etc. But, you know, Kelsey didn't do too bad in my opinion. And one other good thing....it makes LOTM look like gold. Your servant.....Sjt. Malcolm MacWm. |
| daire |
Posted - January 13 2003 : 8:43:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Diana
Sebastian Roche "Glover" was in MOHICANS but apparently his scene was cut. He is listed in the credits though.
Whew, I thought I was hallucinating. I saw SR listed, and was like "Where?" The same thing with Colm Meany...we could never find him because he only walks by the camera really quickly. I found him, but my dad could never make him out, so finally, when we got the DVD, we could slo mo it and I pointed him out. LOL
|
| Diana |
Posted - January 13 2003 : 5:13:44 PM
I gotta jump in here. I never saw DUMB AND DUMBER so I can't see J Daniels in that role. I thought he was fine. It is Kelsey Grammer I was wondering about.
More important re: THE CROSSING. I got really hooked on Col John Glover and Alexander Hamilton. (Ok, so they were cute, too!!) Sebastian Roche "Glover" was in MOHICANS but apparently his scene was cut. He is listed in the credits though.
Regards,
Diana |
| Wilderness Woman |
Posted - January 13 2003 : 10:28:47 AM
Yes, Sarj! We absolutely do want your "two shillings"! I think it would be great if more of you in the reenacting community would come out of the woods and offer comments. Theresa is absolutely right... you help us reenactor wanna-bes to learn.
Regarding Arnold... I am still in the process of reading and learning more about him. After I went to Saratoga 225th, I really got turned on to his genius as a military tactician. While the fact will always be that he betrayed his new country, and his mentor (Washington), it may be a good thing for the general American public to learn more about his good qualities... and perhaps a little as to why he did what he did. I hope the movie will handle the facts accurately.
And regarding the movie The Crossing... Sure there are inaccuracies as far as details, "costumes", etc. And if I were a reenactor, I would be cringing too. I think that Hollywood is trying a bit harder to do better at that, but they still have a long way to go. Someone pointed out to me that soldiers would not have walked around with their muskets pointing skyward, when it was raining or snowing, as they did in the movie. Makes sense to me! Also that the attack on Trenton would have been far more chaotic than was shown in the movie.
I even found an inaccuracy all on my own: at the end of the movie Washington asks Gen. Stirling how many men they lost. Stirling replies "None." Washington asks how many wounded, and again Stirling replies "None." Washington is stunned. In the limited amount of reading I have done, this does not appear to be correct. There are different accounts, but it appears that 2 or 3 men were actually wounded, and 1 or 2 may have died, either as a result of wounds or due to the severe conditions.
But, you know... those little things almost don't matter! Because the major events of the movie were so well presented: the severe conditions the men had to endure; the hardships; the miracle those Marblehead fishermen performed; and above all, the sheer determination of Washington to even attempt such a gutsy thing... The average American has No Clue! And for that purpose... the movie was wonderful, and I would highly recommend that anyone watch it. It is our History!
OK, I'll get off my soapbox now. Come again, anytime, Sarj! |
|
Around The Site:
~ What's New? ~
Pathfinding
|
Mohican Gatherings
|
Mohican Musings
|
LOTM Script
|
History
|
Musical Musings
|
Storefronts on the Frontier
Off the Beaten Trail
|
Links
Of Special Interest:
The Eric Schweig Gallery
|
From the Ramparts
|
The Listening Room
|
Against All Odds
|
The Video Clips Index
DISCLAIMER
Tune, 40, used by permission - composed by Ron Clarke
|
| The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!] |
© 1997-2025 - Mohican Press |
 |
|
| Current Mohicanland page raised in 0.15 seconds |
 |
|
![The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]](images/wwwboard.gif "The Mohican Board! [Bumppo's Redux!]")
