MovieChat Forums > Culloden (1968) Discussion > 'Racist and one-sided'???

'Racist and one-sided'???

posted 15 years ago by syntinen
8 replies | jump to latest

I read the reviews posted here and I was surprised to rsee that a Scottish reviewer says "It really doesn't have anything very good to say about anyone, English or Scots, but this won't stop many English feeling it is racist and one-sided".

WTF? I'm English, and not only do I myself not feel that Culloden is "racist and one-sided", but I've never met a single other English person who does, nor can I see why anyone would. In fact it's very sympathetic to the English soldiery - that shot of the men of Barrell's Blues left standing after the Highland charge, gasping with shock, really makes you feel with them.

Any thoughts?

[–] silverwhistle 15 years ago

Another point is that more research has been done on the battle since the '60s (a friend of mine is something of a specialist on it), but it's pretty decent as a 1960s treatment, given what was known at the time.

Frankly, I'm completely baffled that there's anyone around who still sees the Jacobite rebellion as an England-v-Scotland affair at all! There's been enough work done on the subject, it should have knocked all that stupid mythology on the head.

It was a dynastic/sectarian civil war. The Church of Scotland congratulated the government forces on their victory (entirely understandable, given the Stuarts' record with the Kirk, of which most Scots were members), and the rebel regiment which suffered the most executions was the one made up of Lancashire Catholics, who'd been left to garrison Carlisle.

[–] syntinen 15 years ago

Yes, in fact if anyone has cause to feel short-changed by the film, it's the Lowland Scots; it's never really spelt out how badly they felt (and were) threatened by the possibility of a Stuart restoration, and by Highlanders in general.

I know that Prebble (and this is essentially a film of Prebble's book), like Runciman, has been superseded in many respects, but it was still ground-breaking in its time. And, like Runciman, amazingly vividly written.

[–] silverwhistle 15 years ago

Yes, in fact if anyone has cause to feel short-changed by the film, it's the Lowland Scots; it's never really spelt out how badly they felt (and were) threatened by the possibility of a Stuart restoration

Or indeed, how threatened Presbyterian Highlanders felt. (It's equally wrong to depict it as Highland v. Lowland: some parts of the Highlands were strongly anti-Jaco, while there were strong Jacobite areas in the Lowlands, especially among the Episcopalian gentry.)

I know that Prebble (and this is essentially a film of Prebble's book), like Runciman, has been superseded in many respects, but it was still ground-breaking in its time. And, like Runciman, amazingly vividly written.

Part of the problem was also that (unlike Runciman) Prebble was not a trained historian. Like some earlier novelists (I think especially of Dorothy Broster), he seemed to take The Lyon in Mourning on trust, when it's basically Episcopalian propaganda, compiled by a non-jurant bishop, if I recall correctly.

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

Highlanders were on both sides, as were Lowlanders. Contrary to the Highland vs Lowland myth.

The majority of the Jacobite forces were from Lowland north east Scotland, and were episcopalian, not RC, which should knock the sectarian myth on the head too.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

"Frankly, I'm completely baffled that there's anyone around who still sees the Jacobite rebellion as an England-v-Scotland affair at all! There's been enough work done on the subject, it should have knocked all that stupid mythology on the head. "

You're right, it wasn't that, it was a Scottish civil war, egged on by the English.

Still, the disgusting acts committed by the British army after their victory cannot be condoned. Nor can their banning of Gaelic culture and language, and persecution of Highlanders who came out AGAINST the Jacobites.

---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] stevekaczynski 8 years ago

The documentary engages in a certain amount of myth-busting for its time, depicting most of the Jacobite leadership as fools and the Prince as rather oblivious and with a heavy French accent. It also notes a civil war aspect, with one son of the Chisholm chief in the Jacobite ranks and another in the Hanoverian government army. This was often a tactic in the Highlands, to have some sons serving on either side, because the losing side was often attaindered (had all property confiscated, sometimes handed over to supporters of the winning side as a reward) and having a son or two on the winning side was a form of insurance.

"Chicken soup - with a *beep* straw."

[–] marktayloruk (2375) 2 years ago

Surely Prince Charles was an experienced leader - on paper - by the time of Culloden?