Hollywood Vs. History


From reading the many posts here, it is interesting to me how some people will view a period film such as this, especially one made in Hollywood, and assume that it is factual history, "It must have happened that way because Hollywood says so". Hollywood is notorious for not letting historical facts get in the way of "good" movie-making. "Soldier Blue" is no different. A for instance, the line regarding the Honus character's father being killed along side Custer at the "Little Bighorn - last year". Custer died at the Little Bighorn in June, 1876, twelve years after this battle took place. The movie-makers had an agenda, historical fact be damned. There are two sides to every story and only one was shown here (inaccurately to boot). Don't think for a second that the Vietnam War was not on the mind of old Joe Levine when he directed this film. From the reading I have done on the battle at Sand Creek, there seems to have been a great deal of justification for this attack. First of all it was not the U.S Army that attacked this village on November 29th, 1864, it was a regiment of Colorado Territory volunteer cavalry. The U.S Army was busy out East fighting Confederates in one of the Civil War's bloodiest years. These volunteers were men who had heeded the call by the territorial governor to punish the Indians for several years of depredations and atrocities against the citizens of Colorado and their properties. The U.S government could not send help so the people of the territory were forced to fend for themselves. These volunteers suffered physical hardship in order to come to grips with the enemy during this winter campaign. There was much evidence found in the Sand Creek camp after the battle, white scalps (many fresh), stolen livestock and plundered goods, to prove that many of these "friendly" Indians were not so friendly. Yes, cruel things were done there but not to the extent that the movie would have you believe. Many of the volunteer soldiers no doubt would have known first-hand what hostile Indians had done to friends, neighbors and family members and some soldiers acted out accordingly (justifiably in their own minds). Frontier fighting was brutal in the 1860's and 70's. From the written account, The Indians at Sand Creek were prepared to fight and dared the whites to attack them. They fought hard from pre-dug firing positions. Women and children fought from these positions and others fleeing were caught in the cross-fire. The Indians were not on land granted to them by the government, land deemed "safe" from white attack, and most witnesses at the battle agree that there was no American or white flag offered up by the Indians. The Indians fired the first shot and a white soldier was the first to fall.
Much can be said for the mistreatment of the American Indian by our government throughout our history. Yes we have a lot to ponder, and much that we cannot be proud of. I believe that we as Americans will usually try to right our wrongs. We are fortunate to be able to look back at historical events today and cast judgement on them. How can we honestly judge the people of 1864 Colorado territory who lived those times without delving into their times? Do the research, the West was indeed wild!
I apologize for the long post but felt a need to touch on the other side of the historical story that this movie portrayed. For more detailed information on the battle, before and after, may I suggest "I Stand By Sand Creek" 1985 by William R. Dunn, Lt. Colonel, Military Historian. Evan S. Connell's "Son of the Morning Star" also presents both sides of the Indian versus white debate.

Thanks,
Tom

reply

[deleted]

Sure isn't accurate. Not many movies are, if you want to know what actually happened i recommend reading books or if you rather watch documentaries. Still, what a good movie this is.

Just as with Amadeus, its about as accurate as "A kid in king Arthur's court" but its really entertaining.

reply

mr_fuzzer, Amadeus was never intended as history at all. It is a "what if" story. I think of it as a historical fantasia.

As far as Soldier Blue, I think characterizing the massacre as being exaggerated is too simplistic. In at least one way, it showed less than reality as many more children were killed than we saw on screen. There is only so close we can get to the details of what happened but I hardly think "I Stand By Sand Creek" is a good recommendation for an accurate account.

reply

yes, they were looking for so much accuracy they shot it in mexico...look at the cactus...its like filming dodge city flatland kansas in the california foothills

reply

That's usually down to getting filming permission and/or affording the fees, as well as suitability of location.
This is why many period films are so often shot in Eastern Europe - Either it's cheaper, or the genuine locations are packed with modern life, like street lamps and cars... not many of those about in the 1400s.

reply

Land granted to then Indians you say? It was their land to begin with end of story and they were fighting for it in the same way that you would fight for your country if someone came and tried to steal it from you. The Sand Creek massacre portrayed in Soldier Blue pales by comparison to what the Colorado Volounteers actually did. Go read a history book on it.

reply

I yield to others on matters of US history, but I know a thing or two about film history and, moreover, I bother to read the credits on films. Joseph E. Levine never directed anything; he was executive producer on the movie, which was directed by Ralph Nelson. Look that up.

reply

Well said Tom. Thanks for injecting a little dose of accuracy into the discussions of this movie. Soldier Blue presents an entertaining and compelling story which can certain get one's blood boiling if one doesn't know better. In this particular instance two of Hollywood's objectives 1)produce a gripping story to sell more tickets and 2)continue pushing the narrative of the evil soldier murdering the noble indian, both trump any attempt at historical accuracy. That's what Hollywood does. And they do it well.

It was indeed a messy time and place in our history and the American Indian did not get a fair deal from us when they were defeated. But these were wars with many white settler families massacred or taken as slaves in the process, much as the wars, massacres, and slavery among Indian tribes had gone on long before the Europeans arrived on the continent. It's always easy to blame us but the truth is a bit more complicated.

Anyway, thanks again.

reply

''Well said Tom. Thanks for injecting a little dose of accuracy into the discussions of this movie.'' - VTSteve

I like the way you and Tom try to pretend that you are intelligent and unbiased when you are both in fact pig-ignorant and as bias as they come.

'' Soldier Blue presents an entertaining and compelling story which can certain get one's blood boiling if one doesn't know better.''

Sorry, if people knew the truth behind the movie their blood would be boiling even more, To claim that people's blood will not be boiling if they ''knew better'' implies that the inspiration for this film either didn't happen or was milder than depicted. You and I know this to be a load of nonsense. The massacre that happened at Sand Creek was far worse that what is depicting in the film. You know that but are really the usual jingoistic idiot who wants to deflect blame from your own country.

This film was too mild, in reality, as it didn't show male's testicles being turned into purses or fetuses shoved on the end of spears. All your talk of ''historical accuracy'' (aka a subtle white-wash of US expansionist history) failed to address this point.

''2)continue pushing the narrative of the evil soldier murdering the noble indian, both trump any attempt at historical accuracy''

Continue? Not many US films before this point showed this. In most, the Natives are background characters who are not explored much or they are evil.

''But these were wars with many white settler families massacred or taken as slaves in the process''

Which doesn't justify the actions of the United States nor does it put the two sides on equal footings as the Native Americans were fighting to defend their homelands and way of life, the US settlers or the Cavalry were not. They were an colonialist invasion, simple as that.

''The whites simply had better technology.'' - Daedalus

And they were... ahhh... kinda invading the land of the Native Americans, unless you didn't know that?





---------------------
Haply I may remember,
And haply may forget.

reply

The white europeeans came to America and stole the indians land. Thats a fact and there is no point denying that. The indians defended themselves against an bloodthirsty, greedy opponent with much more firepower. It´s such a large nation that putting indians in Pine ridges is nothing but cruel. They did not deserve this and even if they fought amongst themselves before us whites came there, that was their country, not ours.

reply

it all started withthe treaty of fort wise were the us wanted to change another treaty because gold was found in indian land [but really the us just wanted all the land ]a miltarstic band of cheyenne called dog soldiers refused to leave the bison rich lands colorado formed a home gaurd because white settlers claimed indians were stealing live stock with no declaration of war us forces atacked cheyenne camps a month later us forces found a cheyenne bufallo hunting camp two cheifs went the soldiers and with peacefull intentions and were shot down the cheyenne declared war peace was negotiated though and cheyenne and arapho were told to camp near fort lyon and they would be considerd friendly no dog soldiers were at the camp the cheif sent most of the men on a hunt only about 60 men were in the camp the rest were women old men and children the cheif was told to hang a us flag above his tepee to show his camp was friendly to us soldiers disregaurded this when they saw the flag closest figures of casulties 28 men 109 women and children if anything the movie mad the masacare liter besides decorating their hats and gear with scalps and body parts they also cut out fetuses and used them for decoration afterwards they displayed these parts at saloons and denvers apollo theater a baby that was a few months old was put was thrown into a feedbox of a wagon after the wagon traveld some distance the baby was thrown out no way in hell was their any fresh white scalps at the camp or stolen live stock or goods shortly after the atack once the us soldiers disregaurded the us flag a white flag was raised what litel us forces that were killed was friendly fire cause us soldiers got drunk to celebrate their victoty the nite before another group of soldiers was the miltia but they refused to atack the unsuspecting indians the us fired first im also sorry for the long post but i thought i should point that history is writen by the victors but that doesnt change the ugly truth about what happend to the only real americans

reply

sorry about all the typeos but i put that post up in a hurry

reply

Sorry, but Sand Creek was indeed a massacre - one of the worst in American history, depradations by the Indians or not. Written accounts of the time refer to the volunteers (no, they were not proper US military, they were what was known as '100 days-ers,' but they still wore the uniform) killing a pregnant woman and cutting out the embryo, and wearing the severed genitalia of girls around their hat crowns ("....men, women, and children's privates cut out. I heard one man say that he had cut a woman's private parts out and had them for exhibition on a stick. I heard of one instance of a child, a few months old, being thrown into the feed-box of a wagon, and after being carried some distance, left on the ground to perish; I also heard of numerous instances in which men had cut out the private parts of females and stretched them over their saddle-bows, and some of them over their hats." - Lt. James D. Cameron,United States Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 1865 (testimonies and report)) I don't know what much justifies that sort of treatment, Dog Soldiers or no. Chivington, the 'Fighting Parson' commander was a famous for ordering the targeting of Indian children, justifying it with the quote 'Nits make lice.' Captain Silas Soule, former Jayhawker in the anti-slavery/pro-slavery guerrilla fighting in Kansas, was murdered in the streets of Denver for testifying against Chivvy and his cronies. The truth of Sand Creek is far more horrible than anything I hope Hollywood ever commits to celluloid.

reply

I would just like to remind people that the Indians were guilty of massacring white women and children as well, dating well back to the early 16th century. I'm not trying to justify ANYTHING, but these days we're always given a one-sided depiction of white's brutality towards Indians, but both sides were guilty of atrocities. The whites simply had better technology.

reply

Probably because before "these days" we were always given just the opposite view.

reply

Terrific post by tomh1 .

reply

[deleted]