Objectionable Content?
Is there any objectionable content in it besides violence?
[deleted]
[deleted]
lol, toad, you beat me to it! OP must be a jr high kid or something.
RIP Heath Ledger 1979-2008
MovieChat Forums > Son of the Morning Star (1991) Discussion > Objectionable Content?
It ain't no "Brokeback" if you know what I mean.
Objectionable content? It's a western, fer cryin' out loud!
Actually... There's a moment during an outdoor public dance (near the beginning) where two officers come waltzing through the otherwise "hetero" group.
Bull dances ("ram reels") were common in the 19th century, especially when men (eg, cowhands) had no women to dance with. What these men's dancing means in the context of this scene is unclear.
"Is there any objectionable content in it besides violence?"
"Objectionable" is in the eye of the beholder. One person's "objectionable" is another person's "darn good viewing".
[deleted]
Who needs lesbians when one can have topless Mormon nymphs doin the Boogaloo?
Nothing exists more beautifully than nothing.
The book is far better than the tv movie. Good of its kind for tv, but no great shakes as drama or history.
What is the meaning of meaning?
You are being trolled.
shareOther than the historical inaccuracy?
share Not even that, it was pretty light TV fare.
In my opinion, what was most objectionable was the somewhat shallow portrayals of the men of the 7th Cavalry outside Custer's immediate family, the poor depiction of the Lakota tribal dynamics, and some lamentably bad casting.
But for television fare of the time, it was alright. Very p.c.
Not if you don't mind seeing the truth as another casualty....This is as non-objective as Errol Flynn's laugher....
shareWhat truth? Some discrepancies over Custer's battle injuries or the simulation of the final battle itself? Crazy Horse's portrayal as an almost Christ like figure? Ok fine. However, I think Mrs Custer's voiceover in the film provides plenty of counterbalance to that of the Native Americans, if you want a different perspective. Plus this film shows Lakota warriors fighting ruthlessly and without remorse, mutilating bodies etc.( Fetterman massacre for example.)
The fact is prior to this film and arguably Dances with Wolves or even the Paul Newman film Hombre, nobody dared to criticize the US policy towards Native Americans on film. There's no lack of objectivity about it; the US government committed genocide against them and the settlers kept encroaching on what little land the natives were given. I'm not suggesting we all need to continue a complete guilt trip over this, but the American Indians were fighting an invading force.Sure there aren't enough first-hand sources to get every detail precisely, but you can read cabinet documents in the Grant administration, plus actual letters written by cavalry personnel themselves, recorded in numerous text-books ( which I have read in several college classes) to show the hostility of US policy against the Plains Indians. Of course, some people will continue to believe, as General Sherman says in this film, "They started it," but such folks will never change their minds anyway. I also recommend reading about the Trail of Tears, the Sand Creek massacre, and the Wounded Knee massacre if you want something more definitive.
Native American life wasn't some perfect Garden of Eden, but compared to the crass materialism, starvation, and deprivation in US society at the time, which continues to this day, the natives did indeed have a more inclusive, tightknit, family based culture. Plus they never understood the concept of total annihilation and conquest that Europeans utilized during warfare, which is why the Indians could never hope to win a war.
>>>"Plus they never understood the concept of total annihilation and conquest that Europeans utilized during warfare, which is why the Indians could never hope to win a war."<<<
I have heard this point made many times and yet find it very debatable.
The poster gives the wrong impression that such was an attitude born of some sort of moral superiority. It was not. It was due to their lack of technology and efficiency. The horse (from the white man) gave us our romantic notion of the Indian--it wouldn't look right to see them walking for hundreds of miles--ragged, dirty, sore, starving at times. They--like ALL nomadic peoples--were one bad season or winter away from starvation.....Life on the edge....
shareLet's face the facts: the Indians were basically a stone-age peoples on this continent, being invaded by a culture (or cultures) that had already gone through (or shortly would) the industrial revolution. As far as movie go, you should check out Cheyanne Autumn, or even some of the scenes in McClintock, there are plenty of criticism there....but what in the hell can anyone expect when a primitive people technologically get invaded by a superior one?? It happened in every single continent it took place on!
There WAS starvation amongst the Indians, surely you know that! Why did the Sioux migrate from Minnesota to the plains? Why did all the Indians starve out of the SW pueblos 100s of years before Columbus?? Many of the tribes were one bad winter away from death--but you don;t hear that from Costner or the other loons.....They say they were there "forever"--all of us historians know that is false. They also say they had the horse forever--that too is a myth. The Indians were like a grazing, nomadic animal, no more and no less successful than that. I'm a college professor and historian and I've of course read all those accounts you mention, but I've come out the other side, and am able to see that's FAR more complicated than either side's extremists admits....
Go and read the book this is based on and then tear that down, clown.
Sacred cows make delicious hamburgers.
"I'm a college professor and historian..."
And yet, you can't seem to write coherent sentences.
Your points would certainly hold more sway for me if they were presented in a calm, thought out, and well written manner. As presented here, they seem to be little more than rants. I hope your classroom presentation is not conducted in the same style.
All the above arguments fail to take into acount why the roaming Sioux and Cheyanne in northern Wyoming and eastern Montana were only one bad winter away from starvation by 1876, the almost total anililation of there primary food source by white hunters( which was of course the buffalo). Prior to the 1870's, the northern plains tribes had tens of millions of buffalo (and to a lesser extent the pronghorn antelope) to feed on and were hardly destitute.
share@SCmovieprof... The Plains Indians ultimately lost the war with the Americans not only because they were technologically "backward", but because (forgive me!) they lived in harmony with nature.
That is, they were non-agricultural * -- they did not "exploit" their environment with farming and animal husbandry. The Americans could produce far more calories per person, and easily out-reproduce them. This would have been true even if there had been no immigration to force people Westward.
* Yes, I realize agriculture is technology.
"Native American life wasn't some perfect Garden of Eden, but compared to the crass materialism, starvation, and deprivation in US society at the time, which continues to this day..."
How amazing it is to hear someone condemn American society for its "crass materialism" -- the very thing that Americans prize so highly. Thank you.