I just watched this last night, first time in years. I read one of the reviews where the reviewer describes this film as a warts and all story of the James/Younger gang. I think it's a great film but I don't agree with this anecdote, the whole "don't be shootin innocent folk" attitude of Jessy James in this film just isn't true, apparently it was Jessie James that shot the teller in Northfield and not Clell Miller as portrayed.
shareI agree. The true story is more complicated and compelling. No one's really told the true story of James' time as a confederate guerilla fighter either. I love this movie, but I don't think much effort was made to really explore Jesse James character. Indeed, I think this movie was less about Jesse James in particular than the "brothers" concept as a whole.
shareAgreed. Well said.
share"I think this movie was less about Jesse James in particular than the "brothers" concept as a whole."
Perhaps this is because the movie is about the brothers and fighting the progress of the railroad.
[deleted]
Actually it had little to do with the progress of the railroads, it had to do with easy money and lazy outlaws, and that in a nutshell was the James/Younger gang, and someone said above that Jessie was no saint, to be sure he was more of a killer along with cousin Cole Younger and friend Clel Miller than the others in the Gang, Frank James was the least blood thirsty of the bunch along with Jim and Bob Younger
For Entertainment (not historic) value, this was one excellent western.
“Do not fear death... only the unlived life.” - Natalie Babbitt
Actually, the railroad angle is downplayed and a train robbery only appears in one scene. The James Brothers weren't fighting anything...they were plain, murderous robbers who unfortunately have been held up as America Icons.
shareA perfect example of this is Dennis Quaid. Remove his character and nothing changes in the movie except for one less set of sibling actors. He gets kicked out of the gang at the beginning, shows up to establish a love triangle, then to resolve the triangle, and then one more scene where he pretty much says he's not going to do anything else.
Jesse didn't shoot the teller it was actually Frank.
share[deleted]
PBS' The American Experience did a documentary on Jesse James within the last six months that I thought was credible and well-done. Segments of interviews with a number of today's top scholars on this subject were interwoven in the clean, effective narrative. I saw it again recently and recommend it as a healthy corrective to the romanticized view of the James/Younger gang. There is also quite a bit of information on the Internet. But, to quote the post before mine, accounts vary. As in life, much of what happened in the past will remain unknown for sure. But we know enough to render verdicts.
Yes, The Long Riders is a terrific and underrated movie. But it is far from a factual, this-is-how-it-really-happened film. Frank and Jesse rode with Bloody Bill Anderson, who more than lived up to his name. The leader of a murderous band of Confederate guerillas during the Civil War, Anderson and his cold-blooded killers roamed, plundered, and murdered at will, recognizing no higher authority or "rules" of war. They took "trophies" from their victims--scalps, ears, even a man's nose. For them, murder was a vice; they thrived on the stench of blood and battle.
When the war ended, unlike most combatants who'd survived, it was as though the good old days had ended for the James and Youngers. So they kept robbing and killing. Blaming the "railroads" was just an excuse. Sure, they robbed the safes on trains, but they also lifted the passengers' personal valuables at gunpoint--far from the Robin Hood image. They robbed banks, too. But blaming the "banks and the railroads" for the lazy, murderous lives they lived might have been a stretch.
By all means, enjoy The Long Riders for the visually impressive, well-told story that it is--and for its bravura, one-of-a-kind ensemble cast of real-life brothers. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance)? Well, be entertained by this superb recreation of the legend--just don't let it sucker you.
There's more than a touch of irony at Archie's funeral when the preacher says that his death "tries the patience of good Christian men." (I may not have the quote verbatim.)
The attitude of the James Brothers and their clan is that it's perfectly all right for them to rob and kill, but if somebody does it to them, then they're in high moral dudgeon. In those days, when you robbed someone there was less chance that they would ever be able to get their money back, and some of them no doubt had their lives ruined.
It's the same psychology we see in certain parts of the world where one country shoots missiles at the other and then is outraged when that country shoots back at them. Why, how dare they!
This is known as "solipsism" --- basically, the belief that you are the only thing that matters.
THE LONG RIDERS may romanticize the outlaws, but it portrays their doublethink and hypocrisy with great clarity.
We report, you decide; but we decide what to report.
As quintessential historian and all around thinker and pertuberator, Zach Nazarian, put it: "When the log rolls over we are dead, dead, dead."
Nothing is more beautiful than nothing.
I wouldn't go so far as to say Anderson 'murdered at will'. He was fighting for his country, and it was them or him. He only targeted Yanks and Yank sympathizers...in his own country. Was he extreme? Yes. But his sisters were killed at the hands of Yanks. Were many Yanks in general extreme? Yes.
Civil War's do strange things to people. If the Yanks hadn't invaded the South, we'd prob not be talking about any of this.
I really didn't think much of this film. The guy playing Jesse (Keach's brother) was horrible, as was much of the acting.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone
right on ... if only Johnny Reb had won!!!
share"If the Yanks hadn't invaded the South, we'd prob not be talking about any of this".
If the Rebs had not treacherously seceded, there would have been no need for the Yanks to chastise them, as a loving father chastises a wayward child.
I absolutely do not buy the heroism of the Reb guerillas. Quantrill, Anderson and their ilk needed a merciful putting-down like mad dogs.
If the Rebs had not treacherously seceded, there would have been no need for the Yanks to chastise them, as a loving father chastises a wayward child.
"Might wanna learn a little history. Start by reading the Declaration of Independence first".
Yes, the Declaration. A noble document, created and fought for by New Englanders and Georgians, Pennsylvanians and Virginians alike. All pulling together in a UNION. Geddit, fella? A UNION!
Those scurvy Reb traitors nearly ruined this noble experiment.
Didn't even make it past the first part NOR even understood the concept of the Revolution. Here let me help :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Bold...italics...GET IT??? They had the right to leave the 'union'. Says so right in the ..your own words "noble document". And it is noble. And correct. The South had the right to form it's own government.
Don't mess with a history major, you'll LOSE.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone
"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,"
In what way was the US government so destructive of these ends, that the South felt they had to secede?
Boy you REALLY need to read some books, but reading comprehension doesn't seem to be your thing. You just cherry picked that section and disregarded this :
laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The two go hand in hand. The South wanted States Rights vs Federal Guv control. The North (as has been proven by history) wanted things to be primarily under Federal Guv control.
Two opposing view points. The South wasn't happy. They seceded. They had the right to. It says so in the noble document.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone
"The South wasn't happy. They seceded"
Bet they were even less happy when Sherman got through with them.
The Union Forever, Hurrah Boys Hurrah,
Down with the traitors
And up with the Star...
How many black people signed the Declaration of Independence?
shareNone. But if Adams ,Paine and Jeffersons original draft had been left to stand, slavery would have ended then and there, and the Civil War still would have happened. Slavery was only a fraction of what the Civil war was about. Many blacks fought proudly for the South, and they had already started implementing abolishment. If not for the Union invasion, Davis had plans to abolish entirely over a time span that would allow blacks to be educated so they could integrate into society without...well without having the 100 year time lapse between the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960's, where change really started.
Slaves were 'freed', but only to an ugly society (North and South) that took advantage of them because they hadn't been allowed an education.
**Skin that Smokewagon and see what happens!** Tombstone
Oh,please---that's all the Civil War was about in the first place---the South seceded because they didn't want to give up their slaves---slavery was too lucrative for them. "States' rights" just meant that they didn't want to follow the laws of the government and wanted to do whatever the hell they wanted to do without the government putting them in check. And those lines from the constitution---you just twisted that around and used it to justify the South's trying to secede. What that passage is really saying is that we have to abolish the government and create a new one, not break off from an existing nation and create a whole new country. Yeah, black folks fought for the South, but what good did it really do them in the long run? They only had 10 years of so-called freedom before the Reconstruction ended in 1875 and then the Jim Crow laws kicked back in---they wouldn't get the right to vote,or any damn rights most white citizens took for granted for nearly 100 years afterward, until the 1960's, and after they fought like hell,died and raised some hell about it in the civil rights movement. Honestly, every time a thread gets starting on the Civil War, people keep saying it wasn't about slavery---that's BS---I mean it's like Southerners---not all,but some still can't get over the fact that they lost the Civil War---I'm like, it's been 142 years--get the *beep* over it already! This country is a hell of a lot stronger together than it would have been torn apart anyway (that kinda ties in with President-elect Obama's theme of everyone realizing that we, regardless of race, color or creed, are ALL Americans and we have to stick together.
For a rare black perspective on the West, check out BUCK AND THE PREACHER with Sidney Poitier (which he also directed).
They blacks were to be sent back to Liberia,as some were.
What a beautiful country this would be if Abe Lincoln and his no good
administration would have exercised diplomacy.Instead 600,000 plus brave,
White young men died fighting and their seed wiped out......due to
Abe Lincoln a "manic depressive".no good coward!
The Declaration was written 80 odd years in the past...new territorys had opened up...times and situations were changing...in the deep south cotten was the major ecomany...the south was buying all its heavy machinary from Great Britain in the 40/50s...Lincoln didnt like this...he had over population and vast unemployment in the north...empty factorys with empty order books...Lincoln used anti slavery laws to try to reverse this...he himself would NEVER employ a negro in his household...the slaves in the south (in general) were well treated...there is allways a few plantation owners that were pigs...( my spelling shot to hell tonight)...what has this to do with The Long Riders you ask...well the film is about history of real poeple...they walked and breathed and fought for their lives in a world that was beyond their control...please read some more history 1800 America...The film is great...all i am saying just take the time to turn over a few stones...you will be surprised...btw...the union had no use or the likes of the James Bros the Youngers or the likes after the war...the carpetbaggers were demanding outstanding taxes (fom the war years)...if you could not pay you lost your land...what a brave new UNION...what a Brave New World...i think they called it Reconstrution...also look up the Missoui/Kansas border war just before the civil war...more insight to the lives of James Bros and Younger Bros and others.
shareIf you don't think that the Civil War was about slavery, then you don't undertand that slavery had been an issue between the north and south even when the Articles of Confederation were drawn up by the Continental Congress in 1781. Was the Civil War about economics and states' rights? Of course it was. Slavery was viewed as both an economic issue by both sides and the south believed that legal slavery, the backbone of their labor intensive agricultural economy, was the premiminant states' right. But what everyone here has missed is that it was the spread of the institution of slavery among new states that was a prominent issue in the war and for Lincoln, abolishing slavery (though he found it abhorrent) where it was deeply embedded was not an original goal. The Emancipation Proclamation allowed for continuing slavery in the border states that did not secede from the Union.
Please think through the claim that "slaves in the south (in general) were well treated". Slavery, no matter how paternal, is the antithesis of humane regard for another. Slavery is absolute subjucation, consisting of forced labor and defined by the oppression of free will. To claim that any slave can be well treated is the height of hypocrisy.
By the way, Carpetbaggers didn't invent war reparations... the spoils of war go back as far as the earliest conflict between groups of men. The winner writes the history; the loser pays.
Belle Starr: You're both crazy, but you do keep me occupied. I am having a real good time.
It was not a "Civil War" by definition.
The south wanted to leave, not take over the whole country.
It was an attempt at Secession that failed.
It was about money first, and FedGov control second.
Once you are in, you can't get out.