MovieChat Forums > Shenandoah (1965) Discussion > Were the Andersons complete morons?

Were the Andersons complete morons?


If not, why didn't it occur to them that allowing one of the boys to wear a soldier's cap when enemy troops were known to be in the area was a very bad idea?

reply

Haha, that occurred to me too. But then we wouldn't have half the plot.

Speaking of dull, when you hear "get out of here" repeatedly from armed men in trees, how long does it take to figure out that you might be in trouble if you stand there any longer?

reply

Then there was the decision to take five men on the search party and leave only one behind to guard the ol' homestead.

reply

Yeah, things like this make me wish I'd let this film rest happily inaccurate in my young memories. Seeing it now kinda busted the bubble. It's a glorified TV movie with a big vanity role for Stewart that completely smothers anybody else's opportunity to contribute (including the director and, I suspect, the writers).

reply

I couldn't figure that out either...why did he keep the hat on his head?

Be brave, reshape.

reply

dont forget the matter of the government coming to buy horses which leads to an awful fight scene. those men would have shot the entire family and taken those horses. also, the scene where the confederates come to take the sons to fight, the homeguard would have shot any man not willing to fight. sometimes hollywood goes too far in what they expect of the people watching their films.

reply

You are absolutely right. There would not have been any kind of "good natured" fight like what was shown, they would have offered them a price, then as soon as they were refused BOOM times eight. They would have killed everyone in that family and never given the woman a chance to give a "warning" shot.

reply

That visit to get the horses provided one of the best lines in the film. When the Confederate official says that they will confiscate the horses:

Boy - "What's confiscate mean?"
Charlie - "It means steal."

reply

Duh, it's a movie. Plus, they were on his land, remember? He says that when h's talking to the colonel or whatever he was at the fort. The man in charge asks him to show him his land. So that's why they figured that they were safe. Arrogant, yes; stupid, no.

reply

Dumb statements showing no knowledge of the movie or of was.

reply

The family should have just sold off the damn horses and told the boy to trash the hat...then there would be no trouble...well there might be but it would be a hell of a lot better.

reply

Then the story would have been over.

The family should have just sold off the damn horses and told the boy to trash the hat...then there would be no trouble...SNIP

reply

This Man had Sweat,Bleed,and toiled over his land for years,Built Houses,Barns,dug wells,planted crops
Raised,clothed and Fed a Family,raised cattle
made friends,Buried His wife.
He tried to stay neutral in the war and just wanted to be left alone and be in Peace.
But the war came to His door and he was no longer neutral.

They don't make movies like this anymore
Movies with substance Life,Love,Death and faith in one package.
Trash the Hat and sell the Horses? The Horse was a very valuble animal (Transportation,Work and in some cases food)Give up Horses and insult him by calling him yellow!
After all the man had sacrificed in his life give in because some Bureaucrat told him too? He almost gave up near the end saying Grace at the dinner table but after the visit to the Gravesite of his Wife,Son's,and Daughter in Law He returns to go to Church and Worship The GOD of Creation and in GOD'S Good Providence His youngest Son returns

I would hope your sentiments about just sell the horse's and scrap the hat are in the minority.

reply

Talk about the hat...............how about the sewing machine stitching on the hat brim?

See some stars here
http://www.vbphoto.biz/

reply

This same boy probably would not have been given more than one chance to turn over his gun (at the creek) by the Union soldiers before having his head smashed with a gun butt. Young or not, he was suspected as being CSA.

reply

I was under the impression that it wasn't a Confederate hat, it was merely the same kind of hat or looked like the same kind. A hat that was probably around before the war anyways. I don't think they invented the hat for the war.

reply

The hat floats down the creek from the battle site. The boy is returning from fishing, spots the hat and picks it up to wear, just as any boy or even man in that time period would have. His father has been acting as if the war couldn't touch them, and he believes it. People believed this was a little skirmish that would be over quickly, with everyone going back home very soon. None of them recognize the danger because he insists that, if it isn't on their land, it does't involve them. Even when the soldiers are shot on their land, he refuses to believe they are involved.

Remember that, back then, news wasn't readily available except from passersby or a newspaper, if you lived in a large enough community to have a newspaper. Information was hard to come by. So, for them, the war isn't part of their farm life. If they ignore it, it will go away. It's still a very common belief in many regions of the country: If it's not at your front or back door, it doesn't apply to you. Expand that as you go further back in the past. This was a time when, if someone were to marry someone from the next COUNTY, that person was considered a "fureigner" (foreigner)! If they weren't from the immediate region and you didn't know their family for generations back, they were strangers not to be trusted, sometimes for many years. I know this attitude from old stories in our family, when just such marriages occurred. Again: If it wasn't right on your doorstep, it didn't apply to you and wasn't your business.

When, the boy is taken, it becomes their business. Yet, they honestly believe that their farm will remain untouched and that the war will pass by after whatever battle is over. They believe that the war will move elsewhere, which was entirely conceivable. Skirmishes could be so separate, not encompassing. Some places were hit hard, while others remained untouched. It did happen in the Civil War!

Think in the terms of the time period. Do not apply modern-day attitudes! This is a huge mistake too many people make~especially young people of today. It's as if you cannot think with any other mindset, and doing that is a MUST when you watch period films! If you cannot do it and get all "hot and bothered", stay away from them and stick with Quentin Tarantino, movies about "the 'hood", idiotic comedies, and Transformers. Quit picking apart what you obviously do not understand. If you got this far without understanding how to interpret period films, they might not be for you.

Maybe that's why they make such bizarre films as "Marie Antoinette" and "A Knight's Tale" with pop music and modern-day behavior. Stick with Musketeers who do martial arts and other incredibly anachronistic junk.

EDIT: I just watched the scene where the boy is taken. It's obvious from his expression that he did not realize it was a soldier's cap. He removes it, looks at it puzzledly then dons it again.

~~MystMoonstruck~~

reply

Maybe some of us can tell the difference between a good period film and a terrible one like Shenandoah. Condescension in defense of a lousy movie is unbecoming.

"I guess this isn't the right economic climate for an expensive, poorly-trained visionary."

reply

Yes, I really can't remember when I have seen characters do things so incredibly dumb. Stewart releasing Southern prisoners and burning the train carrying them was also fantastically mindless. Did he not think that he was breaking laws that could get himself and his family hanged. Also, he was eliminating any chance of the Northern Army cooperating with him in freeing his son.

Well, like father, like son. In this case both lacked basic common sense.

"the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas" - K. Marx

reply

He was a better man than I could ever have been.Thought struck me - if he'd been in command of the Confederate army, some things about the war might have been different - like the result!

reply

I think this movie would be hilarious if they were COMPLETE morons which apparently they were pretty close to.....and just kept doing what they thought was 'right' (for them) with no rhyme or reason......like taking ALL his sons minus one along with him to find the young one.....leaving his home, other son and daughter-in-law alone and defenseless against the war mongering savages and carpet baggin theives pervading the Virginia countryside.....just pretending when a complete CIVIL WAR was ravaging right around them.....

Things like "Burn the train" coming from Doug McClure just make it all that more moronic....


"Ev'ryone deserves the chance to fly!"




reply

I view the film as being both a commentary about the horrors of war and also a warning against the dangers of being short sighted, for not looking at the big picture, something we are all guilty of at one point or another in our lives. James Stewart's character does not want to be involved in the Civil War, and he genuinely believes that as long as it's not spilling onto his front lawn its not his problem (and with the way news spread back then maybe that wasn't an unreasonable assumption on his part, as another poster observed). Ultimately this comes back to bite him in the ass when soldiers start dying on his property and people try to commandeer his horses, and then of course his youngest son is taken prisoner by mistake. Stewart then makes the mistake of only leaving one of his adult sons behind to hold the fort with his wife and newborn daughter/grand-daughter while taking everyone else along on his quest to find the youngest son - even though he really should have left most of them behind to watch over the farm and taken only one son at most with him - which ultimately leads to the deaths of the son and his wife with the survival of the daughter/grand-daughter a miracle, while another son dies during the quest for the youngest one.

These tragedies could have possibly been avoided if Stewart's character had not been so short sighted, had he thought bigger and beyond just what was right in front of him. There are consequences to not looking beyond the horizon, to not thinking beyond today, tomorrow or next, to not planning ahead, etc., that is one of the themes of the film.

reply

I'll give you my late father's pat answer when we would ask him why a movie went the way it did: "Because they wrote it into the script."


"I cannot think my way to better living, rather I must live my way to better thinking"

reply