MovieChat Forums > Culloden (1968) Discussion > great film,first of its kind ? but it is...

great film,first of its kind ? but it is not Scotland v England

posted 16 years ago by ib011f9545i
7 replies | jump to latest

I saw this years ago at an arthouse cinema (The Edinburgh Filmhouse back in the day when it did not show American Indy crap).
I liked the film but it amazes me how people think the battle and the Jacobite rebelliion was a Scottish/English conflict.
It was a British army (with many lowland Scots in the ranks )versus mostly a Scottish/Highland/Catholic rebel army.
It was not about Scottish nationalism.

Does anyone know if this film style,fake documentary,was first used here or did soembody else do it first?

[–] syntinen 16 years ago

I can't say for sure that it was the absolute first ever, but it was certainly the first that got widely known or was seriously influential.

[–] orloprat 16 years ago

There was an American TV series called "You Are There", which ran from 1953-1957, and was based on an earlier radio program of the same name. I saw reruns of it as a kid.
It was hosted by Walter Cronkite, and had actual CBS reporters attending historical events like the Alamo, which were done as rather cheesy indoor studio reconstructions. The correspondents wore modern clothes and held microphones,the overall effect when viewed today is actually pretty funny. Not Immersive and harrowing like the masterpiece that is "Culloden".

Peter Watkins didn't do it first, but he was the first to do it well. Very well indeed.

[–] jperez01 16 years ago

I got my hands on a copy recently and my impression was that Watkins well underlied the conflict in great part as one between the lowland Scots and the highland clans. Actually, he seemed to to be trying to impress the audience with a portrait that explained the war as coming from a complex series of causes and motivations which I think he did to his credit.

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

"my impression was that Watkins well underlied the conflict in great part as one between the lowland Scots and the highland clan"

Actually no it wasn't. There were Highlanders and Lowlanders on both sides. The majority of Charles' army were Episcopalian Lowlanders from north east Scotland.

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

[–] nephihaha 13 years ago

"It was a British army (with many lowland Scots in the ranks )versus mostly a Scottish/Highland/Catholic rebel army. It was not about Scottish nationalism. "

Very good, but as someone once said, "a little learning is a dangerous thing".

Both sides had Lowlanders in the ranks. The majority of the Jacobites were north east Scottish Lowlanders, and Episcopalian, so you've fallen for two myths yourself, namely the sectarian one, and the Highland vs Lowland one.

Both sides also had Highlanders in the ranks.

To the leadership, it was not about Scottish nationalism, but to many of the Gaels it was. A lot of their poetry in their own language says so, but then again, a little learning is a dangerous thing... especially compared to looking at the subject at greater depth.

The British State set about destroying Gaelic society in the sixty or so years after the battle, basically an act of cultural genocide.

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

[–] ib011f9545i 8 years ago

watching the reissued dvd having been educated by visiting the excellent visitor centre at the battle site since the last time I saw the film.

It has faults but it is a great film,but the details?

The commentary in the film goes on about the english army and english generals but at other times it calls them British.
As pointed out by one of the reviewers here some of the details must be wrong,there is mention of a soldier getting 800 lashes and being in the battle the next day,this seems impossible.

My point still stands I think,it was never Scotland v England,or Catholic v Protestant.

The previous post goes on about how it was about destroying gaelic culture while also mentioning that highlanders fought on both sides,indeed were there not more Scots in the British army side than on the rebel side?

Can we assume that the Scots fighting against the rebels still felt they were Scots?

Can we assume that the volunteers from Edinburgh,Glasgow and Dumfries felt they were fighting a lowland v highland or protestant v catholic battle?

Ordinary people are still fascinated by the Jacobite rebellions and this battle.
I have met Rangers fans who think it was anti Catholic and Scottish Nationalists think it was a Scottish rebellion.

Historians are still studying it,indeed today on the BBC news website some historian (with a book to sell?)says he has discovered that the battle was won by swords not muskets as most people seem to think.