At the end of the movie, the graves of the unit are shown. We are told that there actually are 9 graves that have been found, and that the characters of the two officers in the movie are based on the real officers, Capt. Giddleren and Lt. Larin. Is this true?
shareAccording to the curator of the Custer Battelfield this story is made of whole-cloth. He claims to have reseached both names given at the end of the picture, LARIN and GIDDLERIN and can find no officers on duty during that period. He also had much more unflattering comments to make about the picture.
I love the movie. One of my top 5 Westerns. It was based on a story by Harold Shumate, and screenplay by Charles Marquis Warren. My best guess is that Shumate's original story was based on the Kidder Massacre that took place a decade prior to Little Big Horn. Quite possibly Lippert wanted to cash in on the 75th anniversary of the Last Stand and Warren re-wrote a screenplay based on the Last Stand. Lippert just wanted to make a buck, and Warren played with the facts as he did with 1953's ARROWHEAD, claiming it was based on Al Seiber. If it was it was VERY loosely based on Seiber.
At this point who knows what went on? Maybe Bob Lippert Jr. or Kit Parker?
It's a great flick.
This is a great movie, one of the finest examples of non-traditional film noir ever put on celluloid, a 'b' movie that is better than most 'a' movies. I could care less if any of the characters were based on real people. I found the movie riverting and have loved it since I was a child.
shareYou have the right idea. A superb B movie and finely acted. I hope Jeff Bridges has a copy in his ownership.
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
Nobody asked YOU what you cared about. A question was posed, an answer given. Yeah, it WAS a good flick, but historicly inaccurate.
When something is POSED on film as TRUE and it is found NOT to be then an awareness should be made.
Let me guess...I bet YOU think Sarah Palin is real too?
Dear bux,
Your response is quite confusing. Why are you so angry about a positive comment regarding a film very few people have seen? It is an excellent film and I said so. Another question - why on earth did you bring Sarah Palin into a discussion about a noir Western from the 50s? What does she have to do with anything?
There are enough ignorant posts from right wingers who love to bring up politics on this film board - I'd hoped progressives wouldn't go there but I guess I was wrong.
I realize this exchange with Bux is dated..and like you I wonder why his comment took on such a sharp tone and I did not understand the Sarah Palin reference..but..i do question why the film-makers chose to insert what they say was a historical fact without any documentation that it is..I enjoyed the movie..i would have enjoyed it without the reference..and by supplying the reference I do feel I have been duped which I do not think was called for..In the case of when this movie was made, without the ability to check facts as easy as it is now..many people of that generation may have walked out of he theater and forever more spread the false tale of the 9 graves..yes, it would have added to the film's luster if true, at least to me..but it takes away from the film a great deal when I find out it is false..
shareHi amikelhenry,
Interesting to get a reply after so many years. Thanks for the kind words. This film is categorized by some as a noir western. I read Marie Windsor's comments about it. Whole parts had to be left out because the producers ran out of money. I look at the quality of the film considering the time and budgetary constraints and consider it a min-classic. I wish the producers hadn't pretended it was based on something that really happened but I still enjoyed it.
Sounds like the woke little liberal POS is a tad butthurt .....
shareI have read quite a few books on Custer's Last Stand and have never heard this story. The latest book, by James Donovan "A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn," does not mention those two names at all.
It seems to me that the producers just made up that part.
The Last Stand was on June 25, 1876. I have read that on June 30, five days later, General Terry returned to his forward supply base and found a message from General Sheridan saying that a Sioux who had returned from the hostile camp report that there were about three thousand warriors there, far more than expected.
This message is the closest thing I have ever read about any attempt to bring a warning message to Terry or Custer. Of course Custer's white and Indian scouts who were with him and didn't need to send any messengers on hazardous trips to reach him told him face-to-face that there were far more warriors ahead than they had ever seen before.
Apparently that did not have the effect on Custer that a message from General Sheridan might have if it had been delivered on time. So that might have started the scriptwriter thinking about an alternate universe in which someone tried to get a warning message to Custer in time.
(02/07/15)
Some people have criticized General Crook for not sending messages to tell Terry, Gibbon, and Custer about his battle on the Rosebud on June 17, 1876 and warn them about the large numbers and fierce fighting spirit of the Sioux.
Since Terry, Gibbon, and Custer had all spent far more time on the plains than Crook, Crook might have believed that warning them how dangerous the Sioux and Cheyenne were would be like a child teaching its grandmother how to suck eggs. Possibly Crook would not imagine they would come up with such a stupid strategy as they did.
The Time Tunnel episode "Massacre" includes a fictional group of troopers from the Third Cavalry sent to deliver a message from General Crook to General Custer. Custer does not heed the message from the conqueror of the Piutes and the Apaches any more than the warnings given him by the time travelers.
The story is dubious on the face of it.
The end title card says that nine graves of the last nine members of the 15 man patrol were found months later, six miles from Last Stand hill - and thus about 3 to 9 miles from Reno Hill where the survivors of the 7th cavalry fought off attacks on the 25th and 26th.
So who dug the graves for the last nine men? The Sioux and Cheyenne buried their own dead on raised scaffolds, and didn't bury dead enemies at all. If the last nine men were found on the 27th by 7th cavalry members some of them should have been recognized by some of the 7th cavalrymen who buried them and so would not be listed as "unknown".
So a theory could be that they were found and buried on the 27th of June by some of Terry's men from the 7th Infantry and 2nd Cavalry and were not recognized, and so their graves were marked "unknown" and for some reason these burials were not recorded. Then months later other visitors to the battlefield "discovered" those graves and didn't know who they were either.
Or maybe the proverbial "alien space bats" buried them.
But since the whole story is fictional there is no need to explain who would have buried those nine men.
The final crawl states they were found weeks later. As for it's authenticity: It's most certainly poor history but very good storytelling on a low budget.
shareCuriosity certainly killed the cat. I'm watching this movie for the first time and at the end I thought I'd look up the names. Hard to say I would need more real history to see if the Two Fellas at the end were real people. Or if the story was just made up. Anyway just that's the reason I signed up for my first post movie chat.
shareIt's historical fiction--a story of fictional characters with the background of a real historical event. Thousands of novels and films have been made in the genre.
share