|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 5:09:21 GMT -6
Post by mcaryf on May 27, 2006 5:09:21 GMT -6
I have just finished watching a DVD version of Son of the Morning Star. Thanks to those that recommended I should get it.
I guess I would award it 8 out of 10 as an attempt to represent what actually happened. The less than perfect score is partly because I think it has an anti-Benteen flavour (was his hair that colour then?!) - no source or serious commentator indicates that his initial reaction to Martini's message was that he should wait for the packs. Also to the best of my knowledge Weir stated that he did not actually request permission to move off from Reno Hill and have it refused. Although I suppose disobeying an order might not be something to confess!
The other mark deducted would be for the final Custer part of LBH where there were too many Indians on horses and hardly any infiltrating on foot. However, I suppose horseback riders are more filmic.
Still 8 out of 10 is a good score for me and I would recommend the film for anybody who has not seen it (Custer of the West BTW would get less than zero!). I was not really convinced by Rosanna Arquette, if you have seen Gone With the Wind then you will know that Vivienne Leigh would have been ideal from a looks point of view. However, I did like the dramatic device of having her articulate the Custer version of events and Kate Bighead the Indians'.
I do have one query arising from the film - during Reno's initial charge most of his men are shown holding their carbines. Surely they would rather be holding pistols if anything?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 5:52:59 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on May 27, 2006 5:52:59 GMT -6
I do agree about what they did with Benteen. Apart from the hair (it might have been that colour, but certainly not that length!) they establish him throughout as the moral focus -- reaction to shooting deserters etc. -- and then arbitrarily turn on him at the point you mention. They wilfully twist his line into the exact opposite of what he said, which was that if he was to be any use to Custer he'd better NOT wait for the packs. Incomprehensible, as for the rest of the movie they revert to the Mr. Capable characterisation. It was dishonest, and dramatically daft.
The Custer battle, I thought, was a complete mess; just an off-the-peg sequence of Indians, cavalry, dramatic death close-ups, with absolutely no sense of what was happening where, why, how, and to whom. Very disappointing. Inevitable, I suppose, as they'd economised throughout by not developing (or even acknowledging) the "minor" characters -- Keogh, Yates, Calhoun etc. (Didn't they even pretend Maggie was married to Cooke, to save having to introduce an extra character???!!!) So of course they couldn't follow any comprehensible sequence in the battle.
Arquette was a disaster: a whining, drippy, Olive Oyl figure as unlike Libbie as could be imagined. It looked as if they'd simply told her "you are playing the grieving widow", and that's what she dutifully did from the off. If anybody ever gives us a Custer movie with the real Libbie -- spark, charm, charisma, cunning, and gallantry -- it'll be wonderful, but this wasn't it. And it would have helped if Gary Cole could ride(!). But yes, they did do a decent job of trying to tell the whole story, grown-up politics and all, and were brave enough to hint that the man might have had the odd flaw or two ... Nice treatment of the Tom relationship, too.
Certainly a million times better than Custer of the West! Though I liked Ty Hardin's Reno in that ...
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 6:16:33 GMT -6
Post by fred on May 27, 2006 6:16:33 GMT -6
I actually bought the Custer of the West DVD & was so appalled when I watched it, I threw it out. What a historical atrocity!
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 7:05:20 GMT -6
Post by Scout on May 27, 2006 7:05:20 GMT -6
fred....COTW is a real stinker!!! I mean PU...It's amazing how Hollywood will give people millions to make movies generally when they know nothing of the subject matter and do no research whatsoever! People crictize Gary Cole for being micast in SOTMS, but Shaw is one of the greatest miscasting of all time......Number one is John Wayne as Ghengis Kahn! Whoa Pilgrim!
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 9:06:00 GMT -6
Post by bubbabod on May 27, 2006 9:06:00 GMT -6
First off, Elizabeth, your descripton of Arquette's portrayal as the whiney Olive Oil, etc., was right on the mark. I couldn't have described it better. For me, I'd choose Olivia de Haviland in her prime. I loved her in all her Errol Flynn movies. As a kid, I was in love with her. This thread has enticed me to spend my Memorial Day weekend watching my taped version of SOMS. I haven't watched it since 1999, so it's time. Fred, you actually paid good money for Custer of the West? When we meet up next year, I'll have to take you aside and counsel you on such things. As for the movie itself, I think what I liked most about it was some of the scenes, for me, portrayed the fear some of these young troopers felt just before they died. Remember the young wounded soldier down on the ground and this fierce looking warrior with wild feathered head is looming above him, getting ready to bash his brains in? Thought I was gonna void my drawers! And I also liked the fight in the timber and trying to make it across the LBH at Reno Crossing, with the Indians flying off the edges of the banks, pulling the soldiers off their horses. I did not like the portrayal as far as physical characteristics of Benteen at all. When I think of Benteen I always see the short-haired silver-haired grandfatherly-looking Benteen in one particular picture we see of him. Not the kindly grandfather image we know of him, but the way he looked. I just didn't buy the portrayal of him at all. As for Reno, I thought the guy did a pretty good job. Overall, I really enjoyed the movie.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 9:15:07 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on May 27, 2006 9:15:07 GMT -6
Yes, Olivia de Havilland was good; some wit, as well as strength and the right kind of looks.
I did worse than Fred. I paid good money to see COTW in the cinema when it first came out -- and still bought it on VHS, just to see if it could possibly be as bad as I remembered. Second-hand VHS, but even so ...
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 12:45:52 GMT -6
Post by fred on May 27, 2006 12:45:52 GMT -6
Frank--
I had no idea what it was. I bought it about 3 years ago, never having even heard of the thing. I thought I had stumbled onto a real find. How about the business of every soldier, regardless of rank, w/ yellow stripes on their trousers? And I liked Gary Cole; I thought he was good in that role. Arquette, though-- wow, my grandmother would have done a better job & she had been dead for years. Poor Libby, Libbie, Lizzie, Liz, Beth, 'Lizbeth (Diane, are you getting all this?)... Mrs. Custard.
Hey, how about Tom Cruise for Custer, Brad Pitt for Benteen, and Antonio Damnbareass for Cochise?
Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 27, 2006 19:34:19 GMT -6
Post by alfuso on May 27, 2006 19:34:19 GMT -6
mcaryf
where did you find a DVD of SOMS? I can't find one anywhere.
alfuso
|
|
|
SOTM
May 28, 2006 12:33:54 GMT -6
Post by mcaryf on May 28, 2006 12:33:54 GMT -6
Hi Alfuso
I bought it for £6.99 off UK Ebay. The seller seems to have several copies which he says he acquired in Australia (he still has some advertised). The DVD has a picture from the film printed across it but my guess is that it is just a copy of the original VHS tapes whether it is entirely "legal" or not I cannot tell. It does not have any typical DVD extras and the picture gets a bit blocky with fast pans but is generally fine.
BTW can anybody answer the question I originally asked about whether the 7th Cavalry would be likely to be holding carbines whilst charging?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
SOTM
May 28, 2006 16:57:45 GMT -6
Post by Lawtonka on May 28, 2006 16:57:45 GMT -6
I do have one query arising from the film - during Reno's initial charge most of his men are shown holding their carbines. Surely they would rather be holding pistols if anything? Regards Mike Not sure exactly why you are asking this question, I give an answer not knowing how familiar you are with Cavalry tactics and equipment, so here ya go! You better believe they were holding their carbines! Even though the Carbine was a single shot, it was for long range. The pistol is for close in fighting. A cabine or a rifle is part of an Infantryman or a cavalryman. As far as riding, the carbine is held by means of a sling around the shoulder suspended by a snaphook into the sliding ring. Of course the six shooter is a great back up, but on the skirmish line, the rifle or carbine is the weapon to have in your hand unless the enemy is in your lap.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 29, 2006 4:34:59 GMT -6
Post by mcaryf on May 29, 2006 4:34:59 GMT -6
Hi Lawtonka
Thank you for your answer. My thought was that if the cavalry expected to close to short range then they would want to have their pistols ready as the carbine, being single shot, would be of less use.
I was not really aware as to whether carbines would be held on a sling or in some form of scabbard. I guess when travelleing long distances a scabbard would be necessary to prevent the carbine from getting fouled with dust etc.
Do the cavalry tactics of the time specify at what stage pistols might be drawn - would it be when the charge order was given or when the troopers are getting into range? Is an order given to draw pistols or is it assumed etc?
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
SOTM
May 29, 2006 9:31:24 GMT -6
Post by stevewilk on May 29, 2006 9:31:24 GMT -6
Mike, the carbine socket in use in 1876 did nothing to protect the weapon from dust and dirt. It was only a few inches wide, the barrel being inserted into it to keep the weapon in place while riding. It wasn't till the 1880s that a more substantial socket/boot was adopted which covered the breech to protect against dust and such.
I'm no expert on tactics of the era but I assume there was a "draw pistols" order given much the same as "draw sabers" prior to going into action. Bruce Liddic mentions in his latest book that carbines were only loaded upon orders from officers, I guess because of the likelihood of accidental discharge. He mentions that Kanipe made his ride with an unloaded carbine, as Martini must have as well. So, could this mean the Colt was the primary weapon while mounted, while the carbine was mainly dismounted action? Since the cavalry fought mostly dismounted by the 1870s would this account for them carrying four times as much carbine ammo vs revolver ammo?
I remember reading also that Benteen's battalion rode to Reno Hill with Colts drawn, not carbines.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 29, 2006 9:59:49 GMT -6
Post by Lawtonka on May 29, 2006 9:59:49 GMT -6
Good Point Stevewilk,
On horseback it would seem that it would be much easier to hold the pistol while riding. One thing for sure, even it you couldn't hit anything on the run, I think anyone on the receiving end of a .45 pistol would think twice before rushing in on you.
Another thing on loading weapons; I am pretty sure that it was common practice to only load 5 rounds in the pistol to prevent acidental discharge as well as not loading the carbine until ready for use.
|
|
|
SOTM
May 29, 2006 10:02:41 GMT -6
Post by elisabeth on May 29, 2006 10:02:41 GMT -6
Steve, what you say makes a lot of sense.
Contemporary illustrations of the Washita battle in My Life on the Plains -- which were presumably approved by Custer as accurate -- show soldiers charging with either sabre or pistol. No drawn carbines. So it looks as if the pistols have it.
|
|
|
SOTM
Apr 18, 2007 12:34:03 GMT -6
Post by wildeye on Apr 18, 2007 12:34:03 GMT -6
This reply is REALLY late, but in answer to your question regarding cav tactics and orders for carbines, pistols & etc.
The order given by Reno should have went something like this; (and I'm paraphrasing & over generalizing the orders) Columns.... left and right into line...advance carbines....horse holders to the rear......advance as skirmnishers (either on foot, or I suppose this could be carried out while mounted....I'm a little rusty on my Cookes, Mahan's & etc) An order to charge, would be preceeded by the order to load carbine, or draw pistol or sabre.
The carbine would be unloaded until the order to do so was given. pistols would be loaded already, I'm sure when advancing into a hostile situation, all six chambers would be loaded, unlike on the march, when the hammer SHOULD rest on an empty chamber.
Hope that helped answer some questions.
|
|