MovieChat Forums > Mercy Street (2016) Discussion > 'Twas Gone With the Wind. Well, Ridley S...

'Twas Gone With the Wind. Well, Ridley Scott's Bringing it Back!


As an avid PBS viewer, I’m a tad wary about Masterpiece Theatre’s Mercy Street, Ridley Scott’s sweeping Civil War drama series, gushing with confederate sympathy. Film and television works that use the suffering of non-white people as “backdrops” for the emotional melodrama of the ruling class, tend to flagrantly ignore profound human suffering. Cold Mountain and The Impossible are two European productions that rendered, respectively, the kidnapping, torture and enslavement of generations of Africans and deaths of quarter million Asians in the 2004 tsunami, as wholly invisible and therefore insignificant. Yes, British series Downton Abbey and Upstairs Downstairs portrayed the servant class with all the complexity and humanity of the upper class, but American southern film The Help simplified black domestics and reduced their hopes and aspirations as existing in only relation to their white employers; husbands of black domestics were demonized, and in fact, they were not allowed to be in the same scenes except to display violence and abuse.

Remember, Ridley Scott recently produced the all-white version of the Exodus tale (despite the diversity of Egyptian and Middle-Eastern people), and the Nazi-fantasy series Man in the High Castle. So with Mercy Street, we’d be deluding ourselves not to expect more of Scott’s revisionist perspective -- now applied to American history. : ( Will this be the sort of sappy, confederate hang-wringing and wound-licking, that made 19th-century American southern literature the laughingstock of the world, or will it continue the trajectory of the Southern Renaissance of the 1920’s (Faulkner, Welty, Tenn. Williams, etc.) that culturally redeemed the American south and allowed it to be more than just than a cradle of nostalgia for the days of slavery.

reply

This is supposed to be on at 10PM where
I live. That doesn't sound like a winning time slot.

This is also a U.S. produced series. So, the myriad of cable TV networks did not
pick this up? Hmmn. Makes
me wonder how good it is.

Anyway...Wolf Hall was decent along with Indian Summers and the canceled Crimson Field was good for one go. Only the Home Fires hit it out of
the park. Maybe new offereings are
hit or miss for PBS and Mercy Street does not have much to encourage it.

reply

Worse here in Central Fl 3 am Tuesday

reply

As a history buff I don't want neither the Lost Cause myth or a Progressive manichean interpretation of the past.What I want is history as near to what it was--complex and grey.

The problem with "Man in the High Castle" is not it's lack of diversity but the ahistorical basis. Neither the Germans or Japanese had the capability to conquer the US. When a miniseries starts out with a such a basic and fatal narrative flaw it is then rendered ridiculous.

" Will this be the sort of sappy, confederate hang-wringing and wound-licking, that made 19th-century American southern literature the laughingstock of the world" This is plainly an assumption on your part. I don't think it's the subject matter is what made it mediocre literature but the writing itself. Anyways, Gone with the Wind's huge commercial success contradicts your statement.

Your criticism of Cold Mountain is bizarre to me. It's not a movie about slavery and the generations of people who suffered under it. It's about a man and woman who fall in love in a time of war. While I'll grant you that there need to be more movies made about the subject of slavery and a more honest depiction of the antebellum South I don't think it applies to Cold Mountain. The characters in the film were not slaveowners.(Most Southerners were not)

Furthermore, any movie about the Civil War rightfully should focus on the immense suffering of the war itself. 700,000 Americans died in four year. There is no analogue in terms of death and suffering on such a large scale in such a short time span in US history.

Movies about the time span need to show people as people and not portraits of our own biases. Slaves and slaveowners, Southern and Northern..these were human beings who lived lives as morally complex as we do. It takes a fine and determined hand to depict slavery, war, and civilian life as it was and not how modern activists wish it to be. All involved were human and they need to be portrayed as such.

reply

Your Man in the High Castle criticism is silly. The show is based on a novel that is set in an alternate universe, even a history buff can have an imagination, no?

I'm also perplexed by your response regarding Cold Mountain, the OP's description seems completely accurate based on your supposed "counter" description of it.

Sorry, but some things aren't morally complex and some evils don't need to be explored to find places where you can relate and then sympathize. American slavery was a brutal institution that exploited the lives of people at the hands of other people who felt morally justified to do so. I wish we could get stories about the people who lived as slaves from their perspective rather these attempts to explore the emotions and mindsets of a group of people who clearly lacked humanity, even by the estimations of many of their contemporaries.




"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Sorry, but some things aren't morally complex and some evils don't need to be explored to find places where you can relate and then sympathize


"Things" are not complex, right. People are.

reply

I don't know. Physics is pretty complex. It's not a person.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nW7azekZya8

"Our Art Is a Reflection of Our Reality"

reply

Thanks.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Your post is silly. The show is not based in sound history. That ruins the entire premise. They might as well go ignore history altogether and re-invent the past by making the Nazis aliens. At least then the plot could be explicable.

Sorry, but things are. I know you think in simple moralistic terms. That's a very human trait. But that's not history. The Nazis, like slaveowners, were humans with real thoughts and feelings. That is a trait they share with everyone on the planet. It takes a fine and learned mind to show evil not as the product of the actions of one-dimensional agents of evil, but from flesh and blood humans in all their complexity.

reply

His criticism of Cold Mountain is a poor one because the movie was never about slavery. It was about a couple during the time of the Civil War. Seeing as that most Southerners did not own slaves and that the lead characters were of the lower class it then ought to surprise us that slavery did not have a role in this movie.

Slavery was one aspect of a multilayered society. Neither you or the OP seem to understand this. If Cold Mountain was about a plantation owner then he/she would more room to argue for a higher profile for the treatment of slaves in the South.But it wasn't.

A much more legitimate criticism would be why there are not more movies about slavery from the slaves perspective.

reply

The problem with "Man in the High Castle" is not it's lack of diversity but the ahistorical basis. Neither the Germans or Japanese had the capability to conquer the US. When a miniseries starts out with a such a basic and fatal narrative flaw it is then rendered ridiculous.
I've only read Phillip K. Dick's very fine novel. The series may, indeed, suck.

But your criticism doesn't seem fair. It is science fiction story. Yes, we know that, historically, Allied victory seemed inevitable.

But what do you know about the German efforts to develop an Atomic Bomb? The Nazis put Werner Heisenberg in charge. Yes, that Heisenberg, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle Heisenberg.

For whatever reason, Heisenberg's team took a wrong turn. They miscalculated how much fissionables a bomb would require, an overestimate of a factor of ten.

Maybe Heisenberg sabotaged the program?

What if the Nazis built the A-bomb first? I read the novel long ago. I can't remember how Dick handled the A bomb, or when he had WW2 begin.

Hitler thought France and Britain would not go to war over Poland. He thought he would have years to prepare for war against them. Bismark and Tirpitz were merely to be the beginning of Germany's cohort of Battleships.

I think, in the novel, Dick had Hitler die, and had a less crazy leader take power. That could have made Germany a more formidable enemy.

There are other simple changes to the historical record that could have made an Axis victory possible, or even inevitable.

reply

Nope. For starters, the Nazis had no means of delivery the bomb even if they have developed it(which was far from completion). Rocketry wasn't advanced yet to carry a warhead and the Germans did not start production of a long range bomber until the end of the war.

Secondly, Hitler was what made Nazi Germany possible. He is the sin quo non of Nazi Germany. Without him Nazi Germany collapses and that's how he wanted it. The Fuhrer principle was the driving force behind the rise of Nazi Germany. Save perhaps for Napoleon no other person meant so much to the creation and sustaining of a government than Hitler. Mao, Lenin, and Stalin each were immensely powerful, but the Communist system wasn't nearly as dependent on a personality than Nazi Germany. Removing Hitler from Nazi Germany would mean it's demise because the entire system was designed to satisfy his will. The dysfunctionality of the Nazi Government was due to everyone competing to win the Fuhrer's favor. Without him the system would have collapse because of all the infighting and grasping for power.

Oh and Hitler was not crazy. At least not until Stalingrad. His decisions up to that point can be seen rational, if at times idiotic(invade the USSR, declare war on the US) But it's at that point where he demands the 6th Army to make a last stand that Hitler's mental acuity and stability starts to come into question.

reply

Nope. For starters, the Nazis had no means of delivery the bomb even if they have developed it(which was far from completion). Rocketry wasn't advanced yet to carry a warhead and the Germans did not start production of a long range bomber until the end of the war.
Wow!

Has anyone ever told you that you lack imagination?

Yes, long range bombers, a ballistic missiles, are good devices for rapid sneak attack.

They aren't the only possible delivery devices.

Germany could have shipped an e-boat, as deck cargo, on a conventional vessel, unloaded it near a coastal enemy city, put the warhead on board, and use a volunteer, or a simple remote control, or autopilot, to send it into the enemy harbour.

Some German U-boats could lay a couple of dozen mines, per voyage. Have a U-boat deposit the warhead off an enemy city, on a timer.

Other delivery mechanisms are left as an exercise for the reader.

reply

Wow, you don't know anything about nuclear bombs. The bomb is most effective dropped from the air. A nuclear bomb exploded on the ground--or in your idea, in the water--wouldn't have the same effect as one dropped from the air and exploded at the optimal altitude for mass casualties. The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki exploded a couple thousand feet over the cities.

Your proposed idea would hardly conquer the Americas. It was devastate a single area of American coastline. Guess what? America has a HUGE coastline where they can switch operations too.

That, of course, assumes that the Germans could have even gotten the bomb to the US. Your first idea assumes that the Germans had a merchant capable of doing such a thing. That's a dubious claim. Between the American and British navies the surface of the navy was dominated by the Allies. How a German vessel is supposed to travel 3000 miles without being detected only you know.

The u-boat possibility is more plausible, but it is limited by the fact that a nuclear bomb is awfully big. Whatever weapon it could have carried would not have been as large as the ones dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

reply

Wow, you don't know anything about nuclear bombs
Bzzzt. Thanks for playing.
The bomb is most effective dropped from the air ... the optimal altitude for mass casualties.
I've read comparisons of how effective ground burst, air bursts and harbor bursts are at causing casualties -- and infrastructure damage. It has been a long time, and I don't recall the details. I recall however that all three kinds of explosion cause unbelievably shocking casualties and damage.
That, of course, assumes that the Germans could have even gotten the bomb to the US. Your first idea assumes that the Germans had a merchant capable of doing such a thing. That's a dubious claim. Between the American and British navies the surface of the navy was dominated by the Allies. How a German vessel is supposed to travel 3000 miles without being detected only you know.
If you are as informed about Germany's capabilities prior to and during the actual World War 2, then surely you are aware that the German Navy took some of the best, most modern freighters out of the German Merchant Marine, and re-adapted them to serve as stealth merchant raiders. Many of these were banana boats, fast freighter that had powerful electrical systems for their refrigerated holds for shipping perishable food from the tropics back to Europe. They were 19 of these ships.

I had a paperback book that devoted a chapter to the voyage of each vessel. The ships carried naval sized crews, with workshops, paint stores, and other props, to let them masquerade as a vast range of genuine merchant vessels from other nations. The ships were large enough to carry the same kind of spotter planes as cruisers and battleships carried. (Launched by catapult, land on the ocean, on pontoons, so there is your airburst.)

Don't forget, since this is fiction, we can talk about Germany's capabilities if the allies let Germany swallow half of Poland, and delay its attacks for a year, or two, or several.
The u-boat possibility is more plausible, but it is limited by the fact that a nuclear bomb is awfully big. Whatever weapon it could have carried would not have been as large as the ones dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
The USA's first A-bombs were very large, several thousand tons -- still they were dwarfed, in size at least, by the RAF's Grandslam conventional bombs.

The large size of the Fatman and Littleboy designs was not a requirement of conventional A-bombs. Within a decade or so the USA was able to make tactical nuclear weapons that could be fired from an 8 inch cannon.

Hey! That would be another way of delivering your air-burst... Stealth freighter with a big old cannon gets close enough, unmasks it cannon, drops its ruse de guerre flag, and raises a German flag --fires its cannon -- goodbye Manhattan, Goodbye Boston.

Yes, the USA has inland cities, out of range of large caliber cannons, or short range aircraft. But, on the other hand, Germany, the Soviet Union, Japan were totalitarian states. As such the fearless leader could try to force citizens to fight to the last man. Who is to say that if the USA lost Manhattan, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, to A bombs, and believed the Germans had more A-bombs in stock, that the US resolve to continue the war wouldn't erode as thoroughly as France's resolve eroded in May 1940?

WRT U-boats, don't forget that some very large prototype submarines were built prior to WW2. Somebody, the French maybe, built one that was large enough to have an armored turret, with a pair of six inch guns. The Japanes developed a double hulled sub capable of launching three large fighter-bombers.

If the USA could shrink a Hiroshima sized bomb into an eight inch artillery shell, surely Germany could build a disposable sub around a one-use large calibre cannon. Send a pair of subs to a coastline, a skeleton crew mans the sub built around the disposable cannon. Another skeleton crew mans the rescue sub. Since the cannon will only be used once you can dispense with a complicated breach. When the sub is in the right location play with the ballast tanks so it points out of the water, at a 45 degree angle. The skeleton crew hops in their rubber rafts, and climbs aboard the return craft. Fire the cannon, dive the return craft, and get away.

What was the range of a big cannon, in World War 1 and World War 2? I dunno. 10, 15, 20 miles? But the Germans did build a couple of super-large cannons, so large they were moved around on special railway flatcars. I recall they were supposed to be able to fire all the way across the English Channel.

If the goal was to propel a shell more or less the size of the old tactical nuke 8 inch shell, as far as possible -- as opposed to firing a much heavier conventional explosive shell a lesser distance, maybe the range could have been one hundred miles, or more.

reply

I think I'm going to skip this one. I was curious for a moment, but your post reminded me that there is plenty of sound reasons for caution.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

I have only seen the first episode but I think one problem is that there are too many adult female characters for the 18 to 35 target audience of today´s network goals. Also all Southerners must be condemned or there is overwhelming criticism. Also, why isn't the Mary character's actress shown first on the cast list? Expecting criticism? BTW, it's good to see Cherry Jones and Donna Murphy, two fine actresses. This show has nothing to do with GWTW. I guess you guys would rather see miniskirts instead of hoopskirts.

reply

Hi redbroiche,


I'm enjoying the first episode. I don't think Ridley Scott produced the series for a Young Adult female audience in mind although I hope women watch it. So far, I didn't think it condemned Southerners, I've found it evenhanded.

reply

So far, I didn't think it condemned Southerners


Are you saying that because it doesn't condemn Southerners you find it more enjoyable?




"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Hi graysonemile,

I was replying to a remark from another post about a war that occurred 151 years ago. Medical practices during the Civil War are of interest to me, something I've studied and written about. Both sides were woefully underprepared for the reality of the War and I think the first episode gave a glimpse of it. So far, I've found the treatment of both Northerners and Southerners evenhanded.

reply

Well, thanks for not answering my question, but okay.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Hi graysonemile,

Frankly, I didn't know what your question was. I might be mistaken, but the way you phrased it felt as if you simply wanted to make a snarky remark. I found the first episode informative with no real villains on either side. Now, I have a question for you - Did you bother to watch it?

reply

I made another post on this thread that should've answered your question.

No real villains on either side? Huh? I can't understand how that's possible? Isn't one side fighting for the right to continue holding people as property? That seems pretty villainous to me, but once again, okay.




"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Hi graysonemile,

As noted before, I responded to another post and my answer was not about the institution of slavery. Slavery as practiced in the United States which was an evil of epic proportions, one that pulled apart families and doomed millions to lives of servitude. I know a great deal about it as an amateur historian and woman of color.

Since you haven't seen the production, I should explain to you that it deals with nursing during the Civil War, not the institution of slavery. My response was to the Southern characters in this bit of drama, not to the American South which started the War in the first place.

reply

Your description of the show seems to track well with the context of the original post then. The OP's argument was essentially about shows and movies like these that use the savagery of the setting/time period as a backdrop only for the relatively inferior struggles by comparison of the white protagonists, whether they be from the north or the south.

I still don't understand what then you were trying to say by explaining that the show is being evenhanded or, I guess, showing deference to the people fighting to preserve such a horrific institution by presenting them and their choices as "complex" or perhaps even "not so evil". Regardless of whether those individuals owned people as chattel themselves, they were all still beneficiaries of the institution and perpetrators and enablers nonetheless.




"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

Since neither you nor the OP have seen the program, arguing with you is fruitless. You are posting visceral responses to what you believe the show is about without actually seeing it.

Watch it and then we can have a conversation; otherwise, don't waste my time.

reply

Well, you have seen it. And you've even described it. The argument I just used was based on your description. I guess you just don't want to admit that the OP was correct in his/her assumption, but that's okay too and we don't need to discuss it any further then if that's the way you intend on regarding it.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

After reading the exchange between you & digitaldivas, I hope an outside opinion might help. I believe what digitaldivas meant by evenhanded is: so far(that is after 1 episode) all sides are being shown. There's not one side being pushed over the other. Both sides have good & bad. Just like in life, just because one was from the south did not mean he/she was for slavery. Also if from the north did not mean you were for the freedom of slaves. They showed this in the hospital scenes. The nurse did not think the confederate soldiers should be there. Whereas the one doctor disagreed. The other nurses/doctors each had their opinions as were shown. It also show a black man, who was raised by a doctor & whom was never a slave. Yet he basically was being treated as one. He proceeded to help save a soldier's arm from being amputated. I feel as though they showed many sides in just this one episode. Now how they will continue in the next 5, will be the issue. I hope this helps. Sometimes it can be hard to convey one's thoughts in posts as these.

reply

That was a helpful clarification, although, it's likely quite difficult to extrapolate what the other poster might've meant. I'll just take this as your interpretation of the show. It makes me no more interested in watching it personally, but I think I reversed course on the idea of watching it as soon as I came to this board to be honest. Thank you.



"I could've sworn there was one more peanut butter left." -- Morgan, The Walking Dead

reply

I bet you're fun at parties

reply

I don't believe Mercy Street is being prsented or produced under the Masterpiece umbrella. It's not a Masterpiece/Masterpiece Theatre production.

reply

Exodus was not all-white.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!


reply