Goofs - Son of the Morning Star (1991) Discussion

[–] Jack_1515 16 years ago

There were no 7th calvary stragglers reported missing on the march to the Little Big Horn. Further, there is no evidence that any U.S. soldiers were alive in camp at the time of Reno's abortive assault on the camp. Instead, it is well documented that at least two of Reno's soldiers continued riding into the Indian camp even though Reno called the charge off. They were summerly dealt with as any invading enemy would be and that is exactly what that scene is showing.

Also, Custer was shot through his left SIDE with the bullet exiting through his right side and going through his right forearm- NOT through his left breast.

He was however, shot through his left temple, likely by another calvaryman to spare him torture by the Sioux. As testified by Colonel Charles F. Bates and General Edward Godfrey (as a Lt, Godfrey was one of Custer's favorite officers in the 7th, was present at the battle and in fact cut Custer's long hair prior to the battle itself), Custer also had an arrow shoved through his penis, as documented in the book, "The Custer Battle Casualties" by Richard G. Hardorff.

reply

[–] lambrettaguy200 16 years ago

I recall that Custer's body escaped mutilation and also the Indians didn't know that he was there.

Is that likely they did not know he was there ? Or was it some chiefs covering their ass from prosecution ?

In the film, I think the story showed Kate Bighead stopping braves from touching the body.

We Are The Mods ! We Are The Mods ! We Are - We Are - We Are The Mods ! (Quadrophenia)

reply

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] maddog30-2 16 years ago

Great film, and I too, am waiting for a DVD release, if it ever comes. As for the film, I was somewhat surprised that Custer's family members who accompanied him were never mentioned or referred to. Only his brother Tom was shown back in camp when he and George was horseplaying in the tent. The fact that Custer's two brothers, Tom and Boston, his nephew Autie Reed and his brother-in-law Calhoun were all killed in the battle, seems to me deserved some mention in the film. Counting George, five family members killed in the same battle, wow, beats "Saving Private Ryan". In any event, this was a great-great Custer film.

reply

[–] Bobster36 15 years ago

Tom Custer is prominently depicted in the final battle scene.

reply

[–] dsrelf 15 years ago

"The fact that Custer's two brothers, Tom and Boston, his nephew Autie Reed and his brother-in-law Calhoun were all killed in the battle, seems to me deserved some mention in the film."

The film depicts a dinner scene back at Fort Lincoln with the above mentioned family members just before the regiment leaves on its final campaign. Its alluded that they all die with Custer during this scene. But you're right, you only see Tom Custer present during the fight on "last stand hill" depiction.

This film is the best presentation to date of the actual battle, IMHO. Thanks for your posts.

reply

[–] SCmovieprof 14 years ago

If you used this movie for "educating" anyone, you did them a grave disservice. It is as one-sided as "They Died with their Boots On" was, for the whites. It's a real laugher at times....

One of the funniest goofs was when Crazy Horse dies (of course he got the great, long, drawnout death! LMAO), when he opens his mouth for singing his "death song" you can see a whole boatload of fillings on his upper right!! I didn't know he had gotten in to see the dentist!! lol

reply

[–] Traianus 14 years ago

All very minor complaints overall, I'd say - especially compared to the errors that most historically-based films make.

reply

[–] SCmovieprof 14 years ago

1) Show me ONE scene in which ANY Indians are anything but "St. Redman." There are none.
2) One man (Reno?) is clearly dead on the ground, his plantation hat still on his head....then he shows up alive (which of course is accurate because he survives)
3) Benteen behaves like a 12-year-old schoolboy, as does Custer....are you kidding me???
4) Reno is almost crying....

Shall I go on?? This is the kind of crap that's written by PC-minded simpletons, the kind that still believe Chief Seattle wrote his "speech"

reply

[–] Traianus 14 years ago

>>>"1) Show me ONE scene in which ANY Indians are anything but "St. Redman." There are none.
2) One man (Reno?) is clearly dead on the ground, his plantation hat still on his head....then he shows up alive (which of course is accurate because he survives)
3) Benteen behaves like a 12-year-old schoolboy, as does Custer....are you kidding me???
4) Reno is almost crying....

Shall I go on?? This is the kind of crap that's written by PC-minded simpletons, the kind that still believe Chief Seattle wrote his "speech"<<<

***

SC, if you're still around, I had the chance to watch this film in its entirety the other night. I found it extremely well done, especially for 1991. That said, it's not without its flaws, of course - neither is any movie, or especially any historically-based film.

As for your point about St. Redman - I don't really agree with that. I thought the film did a great job of juxtaposing the points of view, particularly the Cheyenne woman's views contrasted with Libby Custer's. Very effective and well done. As for one scene where American Indians aren't St. Redman - well, I'd say the scene where it shows them scavenging Custer's dead soldiers, stripping off their clothes, taking their food, etc. It does well to tell the Native viewpoint. Is it maybe a tad lopsided in their favor? Maybe, but not overly so, in my honest opinion. It's not overly PC.

Benteen and Custer behaving like 12-year old schoolboys - I don't agree with that assessment.

I have no idea if Reno in real life at the battle was nearly crying - but I wouldn't have blamed him if he was. The Indian scout getting shot and having his brains blasted over Reno is based on historical accounts, and in my honest opinion, Reno was darn lucky to get out of there alive.

Some minor things that slightly annoyed me was when one Seventh Cavalry trooper just stands there waiting to get shot by an arrow, and the superimposition of Gary Cole's visage onto a well-known portrait photo of Custer looked badly done and unnecessary. They should've just used the actual photo of Custer, in my honest opinion. They also could've made Cole look a little older (as the real Custer did by 1876) during the Battle of Little Big Horn.

Again, though, very minor stuff. I thought the Battle of Little Bighorn overall was very well done, especially the scenes involving Reno's command. I don't know how anyone who's actually been to the battlefield could complain too much with this film's portrayal of that event.

reply

[–] El_Crab 14 years ago

Crazy Horse didn't die immediately after being bayoneted while struggling at Fort Robinson. He was alive for quite awhile before succumbing.

I pinch. I want to pinch. Why no pinch? Maybe little pinch?

reply

[–] cjl2-3 14 years ago

I don't think "educating" this movie would be anywhere near a "grave disservice". If you read the history of the battle, there were a lot of details that were right on. Small details like when Dull Knife has his head blown off and his brains sprayed all over MAJ Reno, then Reno panicking, Reno losing his hat and using a red bandana to tie on his head, the officer who was shot off his horse, and then grabbing the trumpeters stirrup to cross the LBH and then getting killed. Then there was LT Weir who disobeyed orders and went to Custer's rescue only to be turned back by a wall of Indians. Then there is the relationship between Benteen and Custer.

There has been no movie about the Little Big Horn that comes close to this movie in accuracy. The uniforms are right on as well. Of course there are going to be some discrepancies, there is nobody alive to fill in the blanks and there has to be some embellishment to make a good story. Liz Bacon's comment that we need to pack because we are no longer in the Army any more alludes to the fact that the Army forced the widows to move out within weeks of losing their husbands.
I wish they put this on DVD.

reply

[–] jamesbwill 14 years ago

I agree that this is the most accurate historical movie about Custer and the LBH. However, at the end, they continue the myth that Wounded Knee was a massacre. That simply is not true.

The cavalry rode into the Sioux village at Wounded Knee to collect rifles that the Indians had. When the soldiers were in the village, a medicine man gave a prearranged signal and the warriors pulled their rifles from beneath their blankets and began firing into the soldiers. Many were killed and the survivors got out as fast as they could. Then two Hotchkiss guns located on a rise a short distance from the village opened fire and decimated most of the Indians, including many women and children. They fired to provide cover for their retreating comrades.

It was the Sioux who ambushed the troopers, none of whom had their weapons drawn or ready when the shooting began. Also, the Indians were well aware that they were starting a fight with women and children present.

The troopers' commanding officer and second-in-command were both killed and the third-in-command officer was badly wounded in the fight at Wounded Knee. How could that possibly be considered a massacre?

This myth has been told as fact so long that most people still believe that the soldiers simply rode in and killed the Sioux as revenge for the LBH. That is just not how it happened.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamesbwill 14 years ago

My sources for the description of the Wounded Knee battle came from two older books, "Forty Miles a Day on Beans and Hay," and "Indian Fights and Fighters." The 2008 book by James Donovan, "A Terrible Glory: Custer and the Little Bighorn, probably gives the most accurate account of what happened. Donovan terms it a massacre, too, but he confirms that the medicine man gave the prearranged signal and that the Indians fired first without any warning.

Donovan also states that many troopers were glad to have had a chance to avenge the LBH.

When looked at objectiviely, both sides were probably equally responsible for what happened at Wounded Knee. But, the Indians' responsibility is always overlooked when a discussion of it takes place. That can be attributed to political correctness.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamesbwill 14 years ago

I don't know if your question is serious or just sarcasm, but Donovan cites numerous sources in his chapter on Wounded Knee. I would suggest that you read the book if you would really like to know.

As for your citing Wikipedia as a source, I can only quote the words of the character Michael Scott on "The Office," when he said, "On Wikipedia, anyone in the world can post anything they want about any subject. So you know you are getting the best possible information." I think I will stick with a recognized expert like Donovan. You can use Wikipedia all you want.

Also, I believe you proved my point about political correctness. You have left two posts, and so far, the only possible recognition of Indian responsibility for Wounded Knee was when you said, "The Indians may have fired first..." MAY have fired first. Political corrctness involves a failure to hold certain people accountable for their actions because of race, etc. PC also involves holding other people STRICTLY accountable for their actions or suspected actions simply because of their race, etc. In this case, you choose to hold the white soldiers strictly accountable while not even recognizing a possibility that the Indians may have been responsible as well. You take this position even though there is strong evidence that the Indians were accountable, too. You simply ignore the Indians' culpability and focus only on the soldiers. If that's not PC, I don't know what is.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jamesbwill 14 years ago

One of the major characteristics about PC people is that they never seem to be aware of how PC their views are, even though it is readily apparent to others.

Just to correct one assumption you made in your post, I stated quite clearly in my July 16 post that Donovan does refer to Wounded Knee as a massacre.

James Donovan is a recognized expert on LBH. He has written two other books on the subject, "Custer and the Little Big Horn," and "The Man, The Mystery, and The Myth."

"A Terrible Glory" is the latest book about LBH and it uses most of the previous works about the subject as sources. This book was selected by "American Heritage" as a Notable Book of the Year in 2008. I will recommend it to you as a definitive work in this area. Also, it is a darn good read and has numerous pictures.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] bear022013-588-696101 11 years ago

One of the Cheyenne warriors in Custer's wagon tied up was obviously a negro.
He had a very wide nose and White blood.

reply

[–] michaeljbachman 14 years ago

Two biggest goofs:
Tom Custer using a Winchester or Henry repeating rifle at the Little Big Horn. No 7th Calvary man or officer carried a repeating rifle. They all had single shot calvary model trap door Springfields. Three exceptions; GA Custer had a rolling block sporting model single shot Remmington. And with Reno there was two long range rifles, a Sharps model with a scope that Sgt. John Ryan had and a 10" longer infantry version trap door Springfield that Captain French had. Both were used effectively in the defense of Reno Hill.

GA Custer and Lt. Varnum (both beginning to go bald),"had the clippers run over their heads". Which meant that Custer now looked decidely middle-aged with short hair over a balding head.

reply

[–] El_Crab 13 years ago

Two biggest goofs:
Tom Custer using a Winchester or Henry repeating rifle at the Little Big Horn. No 7th Calvary man or officer carried a repeating rifle. They all had single shot calvary model trap door Springfields. Three exceptions; GA Custer had a rolling block sporting model single shot Springfield. And with Reno there was two long range rifles, a Sharps model with a scope that Sergeant John Ryan had and a 10' longer infrantry version trap door Springfield that Captain French had. Both were used effectively in the defense of Reno Hill.

Close. You are correct that no soldiers seemed to carry repeating arms at Little Big Horn. But Custer supposedly carried a Remington Rolling Block, not a Springfield. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one, though. I'd guess you meant Remington but said Springfield, since Springfield didn't have any rolling block designs.

Sgt. Ryan did carry a Sharps Sporting Rifle with a telescopic sight, chambered for the .45-55 or .45-70 government round. And Captain French did use a Springfield Infantry rifle, chambered for .50 rounds.

Mark Kellogg, the newspaperman, carried a Spencer 7 shot carbine. And at least one cavalryman in Custer's 5 companies carried something other than the Springfield M1873 carbine: Private Henry Bailey, blacksmith, Company I. He preferred a Dexter breechloading shotgun.

Captain Thomas Custer apparently used a trapdoor, but not the standard carbine. He is said to have been armed with the Officer's Model Springfield, somewhat of a deluxe version of that rifle.

I pinch. I want to pinch. Why no pinch? Maybe little pinch?

reply

[–] michaeljbachman 12 years ago

I can't imagine Kellogg's Spencer 7 shot carbine being fired much. Kellogg was mounted on a mule and had trouble keeping up with the rest of the troops. He was probably one of the first dozen to die amoung Custers five troops, as his body was found very near the LBH. It was also amoung the very last to be found. He was probably was hit in back during the retreat from the river, as he never had a mount with enough to made it up to the battle ridge or Last Stand Hill.

reply

[–] El_Crab 12 years ago

Well, you're a little off about Kellogg. He was mounted on a mule, and he was concerned it would not keep up with Custer and the HQ group. So he begged a white scout for his spurs (either Herendeen or Gerard). The scout tried to talk Kellogg out of the spurs, failed to do so and thus loaned them to him.

Kellogg was supposedly found near the river, but not where you say. His body, which wasn't mutilated or stripped, was said to have been found near Ford D (not Ford B/Medicine Tail Ford), meaning he was likely either killed when Custer took the left wing past Last Stand Hill, down to a ford well north and west of it. They are said to have returned to the battlefield proper, occupying Cemetery Ridge. Kellogg would've been killed down by this ford during this maneuver to/from Ford D, or possibly in that vicinity trying to flee the battlefield.

So while he seems to have doubted that his mule could keep up, it seems it did just fine in that regard.

I pinch. I want to pinch. Why no pinch? Maybe little pinch?

reply

[–] joscco 12 years ago

Interesting. According to Hardorff's The Custer Battle Casualties, II, Kellogg's body is mapped near the river in Deep Ravine.

"I told you it was off." The Jackal

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]