Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #40: Bonnie and Clyde (1967)

 

The cities saw the rise of organized crime in the early 20^th Century. Meanwhile, for a few years at the end of the 20s and into the early 30s, the small towns and rural areas of the American Midwest and South saw a collection of the classic outlaw, updated for modern times. Instead of gangs of robbers riding horses, the likes of Machine Gun Kelly, John Dillinger, and the Ma Barker Gang drove from town to town, hitting banks or in some cases pulling off kidnappings for ransom. The stars of this particular movie are Clyde Barrow and Bonnie Parker, more simply known as Bonnie and Clyde.

Aside from their long string of crimes, the duo was widely known for the simple fact that they were a devoted romantic couple (Wikipedia doesn’t even give them separate pages). Also, like many of the highway robbers of the time, they displayed a “ride-or-die” attitude, engaging in illegal and violent activities with seemingly no actual exit plan. Eventually a posse of Texas and Louisiana lawmen ambushed them on the Louisiana State Highway 154 on May 23, 1934, riddling them with about 130 bullets. Over 30 years later, the famed villains were turned into antiheroes in Arthur Penn’s Bonnie and Clyde.

Bonnie and Clyde was one of the first New Hollywood films. By the late 60s, the stringent Hays Code was on its way out. At the same time popular culture was starting to grow more cynical and anti-authoritarian. As a result, Bonnie and Clyde (Faye Dunaway and Warren Beatty) as well as their fellow gang members got a heroic lift. They can be chummy with random strangers (including hostages), openly sympathize with farmers struggling with the effects of the Great Depression, and are just all around likeable people when not robbing banks. Actually, one of the stranger aspects of the movie is that while romanticizing the leads it still presents a couple of their ugly moments, such as when Clyde blasts a civilian in the face for hanging onto their car in an attempt to slow them down. For the most part, though, their violence is directed at law enforcement, reflecting the counterculture of the time.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #38 and #39: Al Capone (1959) and The Untouchables (1987)

Of the many criminals who have become big names in American history, perhaps none has stood out more than Al Capone. Alphonse Capone was born and raised in New York City, where he soon got into that gang scene and then became part of what would later become the Mafia. During this time another hoodlum, angry at a remark Capone made to his sister, slashed his face and gave him the nickname “Scarface”. Capone moved to Chicago, where he rose to become the head of the mob. Unlike other mob bosses, he loved public attention and was practically winking at the Law as he managed alcohol bootlegging, gambling racketeering, protection rackets, and other illegal enterprises. Eventually he got nailed on tax evasion and went to prison, but not before helping establish the Chicago Outfit that would dominate the underworld for decades.

Originally the movie industry disallowed real outlaw figures on film, moreso later in the 30s with the Hays Code, but the story of Capone’s rise and fall inspire many crime pictures. Most obvious was Scarface, which used his nickname for an ambitious but violent Italian-American ganger named Tony Camonte (Paul Muni). This movie even has him in Chicago leading an Italian-heavy south side gang against the rival north siders. Late in the 50s, restrictions were loosened and finally Capone made it to the big screen as himself. I’ve decided to review two movies, one where he’s the main character and the other where he’s the villainous antagonist.

Al Capone (1959)

Of all the higher profile actors in Hollywood in the 1950s, Rod Steiger was the best choice. It’s hard to find someone who looks like Capone, but Steiger does have a rounder head like him. The makers of Capone’s first big screen outing certainly thought he was the guy, because they had to rewrite the script several times to gain his acceptance. Reportedly, earlier drafts softened up the gangster. It’s not clear why, but perhaps it was going to focus on his more sympathetic qualities. Steiger wanted people to understand how bad Capone really was and how he hurt people. With little more than 100 minutes to cover Capone’s entire criminal career, however, it was probably wise not to spend time on his soup kitchens and other charitable works, which might have been cynical ploys to deflect negative public perception anyway.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #37: Eight Men Out (1988)

While watching an enraged Al Capone talk about baseball while bashing in the head of a subordinate in the Untouchables, I realized I had no movie about baseball, the great American sport, on my 250^th Anniversary watchlist. Perhaps I should have gone for the more triumphal Pride of the Yankees, which focuses on New York Yankees star Lou Gehrig alongside the greatest of all time, Babe Ruth, but with all the crime movies I’ve been watching I found myself drawn to Eight Men Out, the story of how said octet colluded with gamblers and mobsters to throw the 1919 World Series.

Based on baseball journalist Eliot Asinof’s book of the same name, Eight Men Out tells the story of how the star-studded Chicago White Sox decided to purposefully lose the World Series to the Cincinnati Reds, and how the particular players involved were forever banned from the big leagues. One may wonder why a sports team would throw away an opportunity for fame and respect like that. First of all, virtually the same team had already won the Series in 1917, so they already had that feather in their cap. Secondly, and more importantly, baseball players back then were often not paid that well, so getting a big cut from a bet to lose was way more attractive. These days, when people argue that athletes are seriously overpaid, it’s hard to see such a thing happening. The White Sox in particular suffered from the cost-cutting measures of owner Charles Comiskey (Clifton James), who would pull stunts to get out of paying players bonuses. One such incident, featured in the movie albeit after a different game, was when instead of extra pay he awarded champagne. Said champagne was also flat.

I am far from a sports historian, so I had to take a crash course (this link helped with the inaccuracies). I won’t list all the little inaccuracies, but it should be noted that Eight Men Out exists in a strange place where it’s both very faithful yet inaccurate. This is because Asinof’s book was written at a time when sports journalism was less rigorous and based more on hearsay and not completely verified anecdotes. Still, it’s a compelling sad story.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #36: Legends of the Fall (1994)

 

Legends of the Fall is a family drama that takes place across two decades, and is something of a western as the bulk of scenes take place in Montana. Directed by Edward Zwick, it’s based on a novella from Jim Harrison. Colonel William Ludlow (Anthony Hopkins), leaves the Army out of disgust at how it’s violated its promises to the American Indians and starts a ranch. Joining him are his Indian friend One Stab (Gordon Tootoosis), farmhand Decker with his Cree wife and daughter, and William’s wife Isabel. Isabel does not care for life in Montana, especially when the weather gets bad, and spends most of the movie living elsewhere, but not before she gives William three sons.

The oldest and most ambitious is Alfred (Aidan Quinn), the youngest Samuel (Henry Thomas), and the middle Tristan (Brad Pitt). Tristan takes a lot after his father’s Indian friend One Stab, becoming the most adventurous of the characters, but also the most temperamental. In 1914 Samuel brings home his fiancée Susannah Fincannon (Julia Ormond), and all seems happy. But over the next ten or so years tragedy starts to hit the family, with Susannah finding herself pursued by each one of the Ludlow brothers at one point or another. I won’t describe all the twists and turns of the drama, but let’s just say the movie ends on a bittersweet note and a couple of the characters get overdramatic at points. It does have a nice musical score by James Horner and the acting is solid.

I chiefly chose this movie for my watchlist because the chronological scope of the story allows it to touch on several moments in American history. It deals with some of the fallout of the Old West era, with William Ludlow employing several Indians and a former criminal on his ranch. They’re not living the way they used to, but they’re not completely defeated, either. That being said, this is a rather minor element of the story, save for One Stab’s impact on Tristan’s upbringing. However, the movie does have plenty of western elements, including a final stand-off at the end.

The Ludlow brothers Left to Right: Alfred (Aidan Quinn), Samuel (Henry Thomas), and Tristian (Brad Pitt)

After the more idyllic opening act, Samuel decides to join the Great War over his father’s objections. Not wanting their brother to go alone, his two brothers come along. They join the 10^th Battalion of the Canadian Expeditionary Force. Actually, many Americans, thanks to a growing Anglo-American spirit, went to Canada to fight before their country finally declared war in 1917. The battle depicted is 2^nd Ypres, fought around the Belgian town of the same name. This battle was notable for the Germans’ first major use of gas as a weapon, but this is not depicted in the movie. Though the date given is wrong (February 1915 instead of April 1915), the portrayal of a trench assault is considered accurate.

Here be spoilers. The war leaves Samuel dead and Tristan shaken both by the death and his own violent response to it. He returns and starts to fall in love with Susannah, but his PTSD overcomes him and he decides to wander the world, effectively abandoning her. With her fiancée dead and the attractive Tristan gone, Susannah marries Alfred, but grows unhappy as Alfred starts to climb the social ladder and get involved with some very unscrupulous men (a mix of politicians and gangsters). William suffers a stroke and the ranch starts to decline, but then Tristan comes back and he and his father decide to smuggle alcohol during prohibition.

Susannah (Julie Ormond) gets all mushy with the long-haired Tristan

Prohibition was one of the greatest backfires of American history. Seeing alcohol as the source of many of society’s ills, the Temperance Movement spent nearly a decade trying to get it banned. Incredibly, this came to pass with the 18^th Amendment in 1920. Instead of curing society, it actually made it more lawless as people turned to crime to get their drinks. After all, people sensed that there was nothing inherently evil about wanting to consume a little alcohol, so it was easier for them to break the law in this case.

Usually Prohibition action takes place in the cities, but less populated areas like Montana were involved as well. Actually, Montana got a head start, with Prohibition starting in the state at the end of 1918. It also was the first to repeal it in 1926, a good 6 to 7 years before the 18^th Amendment in total was overridden. Unfortunately for the Ludlows in the movie, their family bootlegging business raises the ire of the local gangsters and tensions escalate into a small war. In real life the mobs had operatives working in rural states such as Montana thanks to the Canadian border. As a result, Legends of the Fall features a unique showdown western and crime movie archetypes.

The family sticks together. Anthony Hopkins is on the right.

I won’t talk too much more about Legends of the Fall, as it’s most a human drama story with a strong historical backdrop. I didn’t even get into the other romantic subplot with Isabel Two (Karina Lombard). This movie is a good way to see how a single family struggles and evolves as major events unfold. Brad Pitt fan girls will have a good time with this movie if you’re one of those.

Rating: 7/10

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #35: Sergeant York (1941)

 

There’s a rich wealth of movies about World War I, but not many high-profiles ones that are actually American-centric. The majority of US citizens had no desire to get entangled in a large war between imperial European powers. Opinion slowly shifted over the course of the Great War, partly because of effective British propaganda (Anglo-American sentiment was growing strong thanks to shared language) and also because of German U-boat attacks on American shipping (they targeted ships carrying war material). The United States declared war in 1917, but it wasn’t until 1918 that it had an army ready to fight in Europe. The army suffered over 116,000 deaths, which seems light compared to the American Civil War and World War II, but was actually appalling when you consider how little time the Yanks actually spent on the front lines.

America’s reluctance to enter a global conflict and then it’s decision to join later, made the first war ripe material for interventionist propaganda come World War II. Sergeant York, based on the life of Medal of Honor winner Alvin York, plays into this, released in the middle of 1941 when America had not yet been attacked at Pearl Harbor. Thus this is actually a bit of interventionist propaganda, but regardless it’s a pretty good movie.

Actually, Sergeant York is not primarily a war movie thought the titular character’s military performance is the culmination of his character’s growth. Alvin York’s story resonated deeply with Americans because his background was linked to the earlier frontier figures of United States history. He grew up in the Appalachian hills of East Tennessee with little formal education and was an incredible shot with a rifle. Thus Americans had a mountain man, a tough yet humble hero, making his name in what was at the time a shocking revelation of modern war.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #17: Jeremiah Johnson (1972)

Jeremiah Johnson is, quite simply, a movie about Jeremiah Johnson, one of the most legendary mountain men of the old American West. Going west to tough it out in the gold and fur trades, he somehow got into a blood feud with the Crow. He earned the nickname “liver-eating Johnson,” based on the rumor that he would cut out the liver of each Crow warrior he killed. The movie doesn’t include the liver part, so don’t worry about any violence in that respect.

Jeremiah Johnson is based on two books, the non-fiction Crow Killer: The Saga of Liver-Eating Johnson and Vardis Fisher’s historical novel Mountain Man, with a few inventions of its own. The real Jeremiah Johnson’s life is sketchy in areas, with gaps often filled by possibly legendary inventions and embellished facts. The movie definitely adjusts his beginnings. He’s simply portrayed as a Mexican War veteran, when in real life he actually deserted and changed part of his name. The movie likely does this to make him start out as a more innocent and out-of-his-depth man.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #13: The Buccaneer (1958)

 

Famed Hollywood director Cecil DeMille had smashing success with the remake of his own Ten Commandments. He sought to also remake his 1938 film The Buccaneer, adding color and more lavish production values. Unfortunately he fell ill, and would die a year after this movie’s release. His son-in-law Anthony Quinn (yes, that Anthony Quinn) would direct. DeMille was now just a producer, though he does show up at the start of the film to provide historical context.

The titular buccaneer is Pierre Lafitte, a French pirate who operated along the Gulf Coast. Lafitte was actually quite popular with the citizens of New Orleans, as the goods he stole or smuggled were sold at cheaper prices. He also engaged in slave trading, a fact the movie conveniently ignores. He didn’t actually buy recently captured slaves, but intercepted Spanish ships carrying them. While one may argue that the unfortunates were already on their way to enslavement, Lafitte still profited off their misfortune. Historical memory of Lafitte has been helped by his participation in the defense of New Orleans during the War of 1812.

Yul Brynner plays Lafitte. He doesn’t have a French accent, but he does manage to look dark and intriguing. Brynner also sported a wig for this movie! Charles Boyer plays his right hand man Dominique You, a real life French privateer who turned full pirate after arriving in New Orleans. Other historical figures include Governor William Claiborne (E.G. Marshall) and more famously Andrew Jackson. Charlton Heston returned to the role five years after The President’s Lady. He does a good job providing real gravitas to his role while still having some down-to-earth interactions with his diverse array of soldiers. He’s the only authority figure to really command Lafitte’s respect.

The main tension of the movie is whether Lafitte will help the American cause in the War of 1812 or not. National control of New Orleans in the 18^th-early 19^th Century had changed hands several times, with the French, Spanish, and Americans each having mastery over it at different times. Understandably, Lafitte and his pirates are more concerned with making money, and it makes no difference which of the revolving imperial powers claims to rule their turf.

Lafitte (Yul Brynner) sits amongst some of his pirates

The movie’s plotline is actually pretty accurate in following the course of historical events. Even moments like Lafitte coming through a window to meet with Jackson have their basis in reality. Lafitte meets the British, who want his aid in navigating Louisiana’s numerous waterways and swamps. When he says he needs time to think it over, the British land troops in his area anyways. The United States then attacks and imprisons most of his men, but Andrew Jackson gets them back on the same side for the Battle of New Orleans.

The only major inaccuracies come from the female characters, both of which are fictional. Claire Bloom plays Bonnie Brown, the fiery daughter of another pirate who wants Lafitte to focus more aggressively on piracy. Inger Stevens plays Annette Claiborne, one of two daughters of Governor Claiborne. The real Claiborne only had one daughter and she was a toddler in 1815. The fictional Annette serves as a love interest for Lafitte, and is depicted as the reason he’s leaning towards the United States. Actually, when it comes to all the made up romances on my watchlist, this one’s not too bad and has some tragic drama around the corner involving another pirate's assault on a US vessel.

Andrew Jackson (Charlton Heston) stands amongst the defensive line at New Orleans (https://commentaramafilms.blogspot.com/2012/04/guest-review-buccaneer-paramount-1958.html)

I was surprised by how much I was entertained by this movie, considering that despite its claims to being a swashbuckler romp, there’s barely any real action. We keep showing up in the aftermath of actual moments of violence, such as a rogue pirate’s attack on an American ship and the assault on Lafitte’s pirate base. The only sizeable action we get is the Battle of New Orleans itself, and even then I felt a bit teased. The buildup is marvelous. We really feel the tense atmosphere, with historically accurate fog obscuring the view of the approaching British Army. Andrew Jackson’s army has to be filled out with civilians and pirates with a shaky reputation (I’m glad that this movie, made in the 50s, accurately shows that Native Americans and black civilians helped out). There’s a warm up duel between British rockets and American artillery. Then the assault happens, heralded by bagpipes…and the main action of the battle lasts less than a minute before we fade into a victory party.

Despite failing to deliver on the action front, The Buccaneer is a fun film to watch thanks to its popping colors and great cast. Brynner has a lot of natural charisma and Heston kills it as Andrew Jackson. A fun, but not great movie.

Rating: 6/10

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #12: The President's Lady (1953)

 

After suffering a series of inserted love interests and love triangles, it’s time for a real historical romance. The President’s Lady, adapted from Irving Stone’s 1951 novel, tells the story of Rachel Donelson Robards, who would become the wife of President Andrew Jackson. She would not make it into the White House, but is considered a First Lady because her husband never remarried.

Of the presidential marriages, this one certainly earns dramatic attention. Rachel was in an unhappy marriage with Lewis Robard when she met Andrew Jackson. Thanks to a misunderstanding, cause by spotty late 18^th Century communications, they thought her husband had granted a divorce when they married. Now they were dogged by accusations of adultery, which fell more heavily on Rachel because she had been married.  The President’s Lady focuses not only on this, but the challenges of being married to a man who often has to be gone for long periods of time in service of his country.

I’ve formed something of a trilogy on my watchlist. I somehow ended up with three 1950s films with Charlton Heston in them. Thankfully his portrayal of Andrew Jackson is much better than his turn as William Clark in Far Horizons. I never imagined anything close to Heston’s voice for the tough military and political figure, but he manages to look the part and balances Jackson’s toughness and quick-tempered moments with his absolute loving behavior towards his wife. Heston did such a good job that he would reprise the role in old man makeup for the next entry on my list: The Buccaneer. Of course, many people today despise Jackson, so they may not like his more positive portrayal. But then again, this movie doesn’t delve deeply into his political career and more into his very close relationship with his wife.

Andrew Jackson (Charlton Heston) write home to Rachel from one of his military campaigns

The actual main character is Rachel Donelson (Susan Hayward). Susan Hayward was known for her real-life dramas, so this movie is right up her alley. She was also in her 30s, which meant she could pull off playing the character from her youth in the 18^th century to her death in 1828. She provides narration which both helps us get into her mind and also understand the flow of history. After all, this is an hour-and-a-half film covering four decades.

Rachel (Susan Hayward) as she
appears at the start of the movie

We don’t get many historical figures outside the main couple, and while it would be nice to see all the political machinations and struggles, that isn’t the point of this story. The first act of the film has Rachel’s first husband cheat on her with the slave women (the only real life information we have is that the marriage was unhappy). Thus she more easily fall in love with frontier lawyer Andrew Jackson. She keeps up with him both verbally and in escapes from hostile Indians, proving that she’s the best match for him.

When it’s revealed that she unwittingly committed adultery and bigamy, the real drama starts. They manage to get a proper divorce and marriage, but Jackson’s critics and rivals keep bringing up her past mistakes to get at her husband. As Andrew rises further in political life, other prominent wives refuse to socialize with her, forcing Rachel to live a somewhat lonely life in their big Tennessee home The Hermitage. This is made worse as Andrew Jackson literally has to leave for months to years at a time as he fights in wars and serves in Congress. Things come to a head at the climax during the 1828 election. People in the John Quincy Adams campaign start attacking Rachel to undermine Jackson’s chances for the presidency. Andrew wins anyways, but Rachel dies. In both the movie and real life, Andrew Jackson, already a fiery man who would get into duels, blamed it on the stress caused by his opponents, even claiming that his wife was murdered.

The President’s Lady is not the type of movie I would go out of my way to rewatch, but I have to say it’s not bad. Because the narrative sticks close to history, the romance is more believable and interesting than what I’ve been getting with a lot of these older films. I really cared about Rachel to the point that I forgot about some of Andrew Jackson’s more heinous moments like the forced removal of the Cherokee. This is a nice, old film that’s not over-long.

Rating: 7/10

Here's a very simple old trailer with some of Alfred Newman's music.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #11: The Far Horizons (1955)

The Lewis and Clark Expedition is one of the most fascinating adventures in American history. President Thomas Jefferson had just overseen the Louisiana Purchase, an incredibly cheap acquisition of French lands to the west. Eager to have it explored, he had his secretary, Meriwether Lewis, lead a collection of soldiers and civilians to explore the new American lands. They would map out the territory, describe and collect flora and fauna, and forge peaceful relations with the various Indian peoples. William Clark, a former soldier, would help lead this group, known as the Corps of Discovery.

Surprisingly, the Lewis and Clark Expedition received little attention for much of America’s history, but exploded in recognition in the 20^th Century. There have been numerous novels, documentaries, and references, not to mention Stephen Ambrose’s bestseller Undaunted Courage. However there has been only one actual movie, the 1955 Far Horizons, and boy, could we use another attempt.

Far Horizons is based on a novel called Sacajawea of the Shoshones, written by Della Gould Emmons. I cannot say how closely the movie follows the novel, so I won’t rag on Emmons, but this could explain some of the issues with the story. The movie begins with an ahistorical love triangle (I’m getting a lot of love triangles on this watchlist) between Lewis, Clark, and Julia Hancock. Meriwether Lewis (Fred MacMurray), gets permission to court Julia (Barbara Hale), but when he’s called in by the President, William Clark (Charlton Heston) unknowingly steals her from him. I can’t speak too much about the actors’ abilities to play Lewis and Clark, because the script doesn’t dwell on their actual real-life personalities.

The movie then skips the entire first act of the Expedition to get them to the Minnataree camp, where Shoshone Sacagawea is a slave. After she helps them avoid an ambush, she joins the expedition, where she and Clark fall in love (in real life Clark was affectionate towards her, but not in that way). And that’s the rest of the movie. Everybody is trying to get their hands on Sacagawea or commenting on how Clark is love with her. Oh, and the young Shoshone woman is played by a mid-30s Donna Reed in brown face. If the filmmakers couldn’t find a Native American actress to their liking, they could have at least gone for an Asian or Latina. To make things worse, Donna Reed’s brown eyes still aren’t dark enough, so the brown face is more noticeable. Many know that the real Sacagawea was pregnant at the time and would give birth in the middle of the expedition. The pregnancy is conveniently omitted, even though the fact that she went on the expedition with a child is what makes her even more awesome as a historical figure.

Clark gets mushy with Sacagawea

But I suppose the pregnancy was too inconvenient for Hollywood, who wanted her free for romantic plotting. As a result her real-life husband Charbonneau, a French trapper, is reimagined as a greasy, fat villain who is trying to make her his wife while also sabotaging the expedition. I’m all for a Sacagawea-centric movie, as she was legitimately a badass who turned out to be invaluable to the expedition. But what we get here is an emotional, weepy character. If you want a cool Sacagawea, check out the Night at the Museum movies. There she’s a wax figure brought to life at night, and she ends up as a couple with Teddy Roosevelt. Now that’s a power couple.

Back to this crummy movie. History buffs will notice that most of the real-life members of the expedition are absent. Aside from the aforementioned characters, we have Sergeant Glass (William Demarest), who’s more of a stock sergeant character than anything. Most notable by his absence is York, Clark’s slave. As a black man, York was fascinating to the Indians and very popular with the ladies (I’ll spare you the details). The filmmakers might have been trying to sanitize Clark by removing the presence of a black slave.

Almost every moment of this movie left me frustrated. Historically inaccurate movies can be good or even great if the changes lead to an engrossing story (special shout-out to Last Samurai). But this one was just painful. The Lewis and Clark Expedition famously suffered only one fight with the Indians and one fatality, a poor soldier who got his appendix ruptured. It’s incredible how almost nobody died when they faced grizzly bears, sickness, dangerous rapids, and tense confrontations with the Natives. Actually, a ruptured appendix sounds like a far worse way to go. The movie has several shootouts with the Natives, and to add tension at least a few of the explorers are killed.

The true story was so fascinating and exciting that it’s just baffling how Hollywood had to make so many changes. We get barely anything about the Expedition’s objectives. Nobody is observing animals, we get barely any time on the scenery, and literally the only discussion of mapping out rivers has to include the romance. Upon hearing that Clark named one branch of a river Sacagawea, Lewis reminds him of his engagement by naming the other branch Julia.

Lewis and Clark meet with a chieftain (https://mubi.com/en/us/films/the-far-horizons)

I’m noticing that most of the weaker movies on my watchlist are from the 50’s. One could say that Hollywood was too formulaic and risk-averse in this period, churning out uninteresting historical films that failed to stand the test of time, but this was also the era of the big swords-and-sandal epics.

Anyways, this movie was trash. For a history buff it’s torture, and I imagine it’s boring for anybody who doesn’t care. The plot was so mind-bogglingly inaccurate and awful that I’ll describe it after my rating.

Rating: 1/10

So Lewis is depressed after learning that Julia Hancock went for Clark. Despite having the top billed actor, Lewis turns into a supporting character for Clark. At the Minnataree settlement, Charbonneau agrees to lead the expedition into a trap so the Minnataree men can kill them. Sacagawea escapes enslavement to warn the explorers, who set up a trap of their own. She gets to come along, as she can guide them.

The box of maps falls overboard during a rough moment on the river. Sacagawea dives into the river to save it. She did this in real life (while still pregnant) and earned massive respect from the men. Unfortunately the movie has her caught in a current so Clark can save her, undermining her defining moment of bravery.

Sacagawea starts to bond with Clark. He nicknames her “Janey” (an actual accurate touch from history), but Charbonneau wants his paws on her. After a knife fight, Charbonneau gets kicked off the expedition (in real life he went with them the whole way). Lewis is starting to get angry about Sacagawea, as she’s making Clark unfaithful to Julia. They reach the Shoshone. As in real life the Shoshones and Americans establish firm relations since Sacagawea was brought back to them. The movie has other plans, too. It turns out that Sacagawea was promised to a young warrior named Wild Eagle (Larry Pennell). Uh-oh!

Lewis demands that Sacagawea stay behind, because he doesn’t like the effect she has on Clark. Sacagawea runs along the bank like a dog who doesn’t want to be left behind. She tires out and has to be brought back on board. At the same time Wild Eagle, who wants Sacagawea back, stalks the Expedition, picking off men when they separate from the main body. It gets to the point where Wild Eagle helps out with an assault on the Expedition while they’re on the river. After a big shootout, we skip forward to the Pacific Ocean (and we don’t’ see any interactions with the native peoples there).

Then we zip right to Washington DC. Since Charbonneau has been separated from Sacagawea by the plot and she has no baby boy, she’s free to come back with Lewis and Clark. Julia Hancock doesn’t like how Clark has fallen for this Indian woman, but fortunately for her Sacagawea realizes she doesn’t fit in white society and after tearfully breaking things up heads back west.

Don’t watch this movie.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #10: Tripoli (1950)

 America’s first major war after gaining independence was not its rematch with Britain in 1812, or any prolonged war with a Native American people, but the Barbary Wars, a series of attempts to get North African states to cease piratical operations against American shipping. The states of Tunis, Algiers, and Tripoli (current day Libya), were Islamic Ottoman-supported states that, operating under the doctrine of Jihad, constantly attacked European shipping. The pirates would attack merchant and passenger vessels, seizing any goods and enslaving the crew and passengers. European nations would have to pay ransoms to free the slaves. The British government had willingly paid heavy sums to protect their merchant ships, which meant their economic competitors would suffer more seizures. Independent of Britain, the United States merchants were now fair game. After several humiliations, the US formed a proper navy and conducted the Barbary Wars, forcing the African states to stop.

This long paragraph provides background for Tripoli, a historical adventure film that, like many older Hollywood films, steers clear of the heavier elements of the story. We don’t hear about European prisoners being turned into slaves until they can be ransomed (the slave trade in this part of the world was actually quite massive, though by 1800 it had turned more into a ransom racket as the Islamic world was in decline) and there is nothing about the religious justification used by the state of Tripoli. Instead we get a typical, though exotic, adventure flick with a heavy infusion of ahistorical romance.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #9: The Patriot (2000)

 

The last of my American Revolution movies is The Patriot, the “largest” film portraying the conflict and one of the more controversial. Its director, Roland Emmerich, is famously a German who fell in love with the United States (perhaps not unlike Prussian officer Baron von Steuben!), so this movie is right up his alley. The Patriot is a semi-fictionalized account of Francis Marion’s guerilla war in South Carolina. Marion had already been an officer in the Continental Army, but rose to fame as a guerilla leader when the British mounted its major southern campaign in 1780. His effective hit-and-run attacks on British and Loyalist forces earned him the moniker “The Swamp Fox.”

Earlier drafts presented a more accurate and less black-and-white picture of the fighting in the South, but Emmerich insisted that he be allowed to make changes for a more crowd-pleasing good vs. evil narrative. This explains why Francis Marion is renamed Benjamin Martin. The historical Marion and his men sometimes engaged in can be considered war crimes. Marion was also a slaveholder, and had orders from above to execute any black man found fighting for or aiding the British.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #8: Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor (2003)

 

Benedict Arnold is the Judas of America’s national history. One of the Continental Army’s best generals, he faced frustration as other generals and members of Congress took credit for his accomplishments or passed him over for promotion. After marrying into a Loyalist family and being accused of profiteering, he decided to work with the British and almost gave them the important location of West Point. Discovered, he escaped to join the British Army and would die much later in England, reviled by the United States and treated with contempt or indifference by most of the British.

Benedict Arnold: A Question of Honor was an A&E television film that sought to give Arnold (portrayed by Aidan Quinn) a sympathetic portrayal. The Movie is for the most part accurate, but almost everything just feels…off. One major culprit is the rushed narrative. A two to three hour film could have better fleshed our Arnold’s psychology so we actually feel something when he turns on his country. Of course, it would need better dialogue and some better casting choices as well. A&E was able to make low-budget historical films like The Crossing and Shackleton look great, but you can really feel the low budget with this one.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #7: John Paul Jones (1959)

 

John Paul Jones was the first of a string of big budget productions from Samuel Bronston. Bronston really wanted colorful spectacle on the big screen, but this came back to bite him when he produced two major bombs in the 60s. Surprisingly, his career wasn’t killed in the crib by John Paul Jones, which made one quarter of its budget back. It's not too hard to see why this movie wasn't a major hit with audiences.

John Paul Jones was the first major naval hero of the United States, scoring victories, taking daring ventures such as an actual raid on home British soil at Whitehaven, and, most famously, shutting down a surrender demand by shouting, “I have not yet begun to fight!” This energetic figure is poorly served by his biopic. The first problem is that it’s one of those “greatest hits” films in well under two hours. It’s hard to create a gripping character arc or build up suspense when you’re bouncing around between times and locations. The movie itself begins aboard a modern American war vessel, where an officer with a “golly gee” voice starts a narration of Jones’ life. From there we see him as a child in Scotland, a regular merchant captain, a Virginia planter, and finally a naval officer sparring with British ships, making amphibious raids, and rubbing elbows with major political figures.

The other problem is the performance of Robert Stack. Stack looks too bored to be such a thrilling character. Then again, he doesn’t have much character beats to work with. The film does threaten us with a love triangle between him, Patrick Henry, and governor’s daughter Dorothea Danders (for some reason they altered her historical name Dandridge), but it’s quietly put away as the governor is dead set against him courting his daughter anyways.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #6: The Crossing (2000)

 

When I was growing up, A&E, the Arts & Entertainment Channel, used to produce TV movies, many on historical events and figures.  These films were of course low budget, but many turned out quite good (Shackleton, starring Kenneth Branagh, is one I’d recommend). The Crossing, adapted from a Howard Fast novel, is about the famous crossing of the Delaware River, when General George Washington launched a surprise Christmas attack on a Hessian garrison at Trenton, New Jersey.

In 1776 Washington presided over a series of defeats in New York. By the time his army escaped into winter quarters, enlistments were almost up and morale was horrendous. Washington was desperate to do something to raise morale and also show that the fledgling American nation could win battles. He led an audacious night march in freezing weather, which included the crossing of the Delaware River. He strategically hit the Hessians (German soldiers hired by the British) just after they had partied for Christmas. The result was a clear, one-sided victory wherein the Americans suffered only a few wounded (though a couple died from the cold on the march) and the enemy about a hundred wounded and killed, with hundreds more taken prisoner.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #5: 1776 (1972)

 

1776 is, pending any changes I make later in the year, the only musical on my list. It’s a big screen adaptation of the Broadway play of the same name, with dialogue and lyrics written by Peter Stone and Sherman Edwards. Peter H. Hunt directed the cinematic transfer, which surprisingly was timed jus a few years short of America's 200th birthday. The adaptation is very faithful to the play, and even uses many of the same actors. In fact, you won’t find familiar movie or television actors here, though many of the leads are big names in Broadway history. I first saw this movie way back in 2002 as part of my home school classes. I remember finding parts entertaining, but eventually being frustrated and bored by the end of it (it’s a long movie). My rewatch over 20 years later was much better, though the pace does start to drag in the last half hour, as well as one bafflingly long sequence focused on Thomas Jefferson and his wife.

The plot is that the Continental Congress can’t agree on whether or not to break with Britain and start a new nation. For a musical with plenty of comedy, there is an incredible amount of research involved. Much of the dialogue and even the song lyrics are lifted straight from the letters, speeches, and quotes of the Founding Fathers. It also accurately shows the compromises needed to bring differing interests together in a common cause, particularly when it comes to the issue of slavery.

Americas 250th Birthday Cinemathon #4: The Last of the Mohicans (1992)

 

The Last of the Mohicans is the best known of James Fennimore Cooper’s Leatherstocking Tales. Cooper was the first American novelist to achieve international popularity, and for an author writing in the early 19^th Century was notably fait and complex in portraying American Indian characters, though sometimes slipping into noble savage tropes. Last of the Mohicans has been widely adapted onto screen, but Michael Mann’s 1992 offering is the most popular and enduring, thanks to its great cast, good music by Trevor Jones, and well-shot scenery.

The setting is the French and Indian War, which was a colonial theater of the global Seven Years War. The British and French fought each other with a mix of regular troops, militia, and Indian allies. Last of the Mohicans in particular focuses on events around the Siege of Fort William Henry. Colonel Edmund Monro put up a dogged defense against the Franco-Native force under General Louis-Joseph Montcalm. Reinforcements failed to arrive, so Munro surrendered under generous terms from Montcalm. However, the French’s Indian allies then set upon the disarmed soldiers and the civilians (women and children included), massacring them in one of the most controversial moments of the war.

Mini-Series Review: Death by Lightning (2025)

 

As far as the general public is concerned, one of the most least known parts of American history is what occurred in the eastern part of the nation between the Civil War and the rise of Theodore Roosevelt. This is ironic, because the most filmed part of American history is probably the Old West of the same period. So imagine my pleasant surprise when, just a week before its release, I learned there was a four-part Netflix series on President James Garfield and his assassin Charles Guiteau!

James Garfield is one of the most fascinating and over-looked figures in American political history. Born into a poor Ohioan family and raised for most of his childhood and youth by a single mother, He became a voracious reader and was noted for his vast knowledge as an adult. Initially a teacher, he entered politics as a Republican and an Abolitionist. In the Civil War Garfield joined the Union Army and, with quite a bit of good fortune, rose to the rank of brigadier-general before leaving the army to become a US Representative as well as a lawyer. In 1880 he went to the Republican Convention in New York to support John Sherman as presidential candidate, but surprisingly found himself nominated after he gave a rousing speech defending certain delegates from expulsion (the speech is one of the more historically altered moments in the show).

The Last Battle: Palmito Ranch (May 12-13, 1865)

 

https://digital.utsa.edu/digital/collection/p9020coll008/id/3031/

For many, the end of the Civil War comes with the surrenders of Robert E. Lee’s and Joseph Johnston’s Confederate armies in April of 1865. Indeed, these events sealed the death of the Confederacy. However, the war did not properly end until early summer. There are two reasons for this. First of all, news traveled slower back then, even with the recent introductions of new railroads and the telegraph. Thus it took some time for Confederate forces further west to receive word that their war had been lost. Secondly, defiant elements in the Confederate government, President Jefferson Davis among them, refused to admit defeat. Since the head of government never confirmed an overall surrender, the still sizeable Confederate force west of the Mississippi was unsure as how to proceed. Some steeled themselves for a final stand, but most got the sense that things were indeed coming to an unfortunate conclusion. They were keen not to start any hostile actions which could prove to be unnecessary wastes of life. Yet such an unnecessary battle would occur.

On May 12-13 a Federal colonel who had managed not to see any action in his four years of service led three regiments along the Rio Grande, his purposes still up for debate. The result was the last proper battle between the forces of the Union and the Confederacy. It was light in hard casualties of killed and wounded, but lasted hours and generated controversy. This was the Battle of Palmito Ranch, fought in the most backwater theatre of the war.

 

The Border Front

Perhaps “backwater” would not be an entirely accurate term. The Rio Grande, as it does today, forms the boundary between Texas and Mexico. It was the one border of the Confederacy that the Union Navy could not blockade. If they dared send ships up the river, they would violate Mexico’s neutrality. This neutrality was only in regards to the American Civil War itself, for Mexico was undergoing its own civil war at the same time, one injected with a strong dose of foreign invasion as well. Eager to capitalize on the United States’ internal conflict, French Emperor Napoleon III sought to expand his nation’s global influence by intervening in Mexico’s always volatile politics. He backed the conservative Mexican faction, who wanted a monarchy, against the republican Juaristas.

Kurz & Allison Part X: 1865

 The Confederacy died in 1865. The major battles of that year were all Union victories and mercifully shortened the war. Louis Kurz shows three of the significant actions which spelled out the death knell of the Confederacy. He also produced a fourth lithograph that to my knowledge has been absent from illustrated histories, likely because it was printed without color and does not encapsulate a battle.

Capture of Fort Fisher

By 1865, the only Confederate port able to receive blockade runners and keep the Confederate forces, especially Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, alive was at Wilmington, North Carolina. The Union had held off on closing this port because the formidable Fort Fisher stood in the way. In early 1865 they finally made a move on it. The Navy under Admiral David Dixon Porter and a Corps of infantry under General Alfred Terry coordinated a controversially unchallenged landing on January 13 and an assault on January 15. Not properly supported by Confederate units miles away, the Confederate garrison under General George Whiting put up a stout defense, but eventually felt compelled to surrender. This cut the last major lifeline to Trans-Atlantic trade.

Movie Review: Hearts in Bondage (1936)

 

Hearts in Bondage is an old black and white film about the birth of the Ironclad warships Merrimac and Monitor and their duel at the Battle of Hampton Roads in March 1862. I believe it's in the public domain, as one can easily find it on Youtube, and at 71 minutes long it should not be a large time investment. The title might cause some head scratching. I believe it refers to the torn allegiances of the main characters. Lieutenant Kenneth Reynolds (played by Oscar winner James Dunn) and fellow officer and friend Raymond Jordan are both Virginians (northern accents notwithstanding), but the Reynolds family stays with the Union while the Jordans choose their home state. Kenneth is engaged to Raymond's sister Constance and she ultimately stays with her fiancée despite loving her family. Thus one can say the title is about people are torn apart because their hearts are bonded to separate causes; Kenneth to the Union, Raymond to the Confederacy, and Constance to her love.