|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 20, 2007 6:16:20 GMT -6
Hi Mike,
Somehow I doubt if the BBC will do their usual hushed-voice "If you have been affected by any of the issues raised in this programme, contact ........." invitation -- little knowing that there are addicts like us out there! But if there's anything too silly, a swift e-mail to the Radio Times might be the most public way of setting it right ...
Yes, it's a shame the History Mag forum is so poor. You'd think there'd be loads for people to talk about. I was surprised by that too. But I suppose it covers such a range of periods and interests that there's no one particular focus.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Feb 20, 2007 9:27:08 GMT -6
That's amazing ! BBC finally understands that Custer was betrayed by Benteen !
It seems that the Brits have much more interest in General Miles' comments on LBH (Personnal recollections of Nelson A. Miles, pages 209, 290) which stated of betrayal at the Little Big Horn that most of the Americans... I hope the article talks about the RCOI cover-up and the petition forgeries (and the map, and the perjuries etc. etc.)
|
|
|
Post by Tricia on Feb 20, 2007 22:08:37 GMT -6
CSS--
No, I believe Elisabeth was talking about the Custer/Benteen personality conflict as a cause to the debacle at LBH, rather than a great Betrayal. Sending Benteen on his useless scout may have--in itself--doomed GAC's mission to failure long before Reno's charge on the village. Or something like that.
Regards, LMC
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 21, 2007 3:26:06 GMT -6
Here's the description of the programme from the BBC's own listing guide, the Radio Times:
"Toby Stephens plays General Custer in an artful docudrama, the first of a series that reassesses legends of the Old West. Stephens is odd casting, given that he's the most dependably British actor of his generation, but he goes at the part with his usual sneering gusto (plus nice blond whiskers) and pretty much carries the show. We're told at the start that new research shows the battle of the Little Bighorn (which ended with the death of Custer and hundreds of his men) was not the foolhardy venture of legend but that Custer was on the verge of winning a great victory. However, in a cunning move, the remainder of the film completely fails to back this theory up. What it does do is photograph the fighting brilliantly. Given that the number of extras is clearly limited (it's a history doc, not Hollywood), what could look laughable is made poignant and lyrical by director David Stewart's clever use of extreme slow motion and sound effects. It makes for an impressive piece of reconstruction that sparks the imagination, even if it never quite stirs the blood. RT reviewer - David Butcher."
Gary
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 21, 2007 4:24:43 GMT -6
The article concludes that Benteen's attitude played a part, but includes the assertion that if Benteen had gone to Custer it would have been nothing more than "a futile sacrifice", and that "Benteen was certainly not the 'bad guy' at the Bighorn". (Quotes from Mike Donahue.) It touches lightly on the RCOI, but doesn't go into detail. (Much of its six-page length is taken up with pictures and a very confusing map; not much text.)
We'll see on Friday whether the documentary places any weight on the Benteen angle. The trailer includes the post-Washita "horsewhip" scene, with Benteen exuding hostility, so there's sure to be something of it; but I suspect its Big Concept is to push the non-coms/Ford D theory. Casting Toby Stephens as Custer pretty much guarantees he's not going to be shown as an entirely saintly figure -- so, CSS, if you can get BBC2 where you are, I'd suggest you avert your eyes from the film. I don't think you'll like it much!
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Feb 23, 2007 16:28:00 GMT -6
Well I have just watched the BBC Custer and it was really quite good compared to many versions I have seen but sadly there were a few gross misrepresentations. Do not read on if you expect to be able to watch it.
The big new theory was that Custer was going for the noncoms but the LBH could not be crossed at MT Ford due to boggy ground. He carries on North looking for a crossing but by the time he finds one there are Indian defenders in position. There were some non-sequiters in terms of stating that Custer could have won but unfortunately it does not explain how. It also seemed that Custer could have been rescued by Benteen if he had gone faster but again not really explained what difference a hundred or so men would make against 2,000 warriors. Custer was on the offensive until his horses were scared away - not quite sure why his men were not therefore still on their horses!
When Reno and Benteen meet it is Reno who asks Benteen where Custer is?!! Well you see Benteen is the villain trying not to go to Custer.
Despite the above criticisms I did really enjoy it. The action sequences in particular are surprisingly good given the usual low BBC budget - lots of Warriors on the ridgelines at Washita (albeit no snow). The rest they handle with some very effective close up work with typical modern special effects of bullets being fred in slow motion and people being woulded with outpourings of blood.
I would be interested to know what the Lakota speakers made of the Indian dialogue - sounded good to me.
It is a real shame the BBC does not have a good Bulletin Board like the History Channel for discussing this.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 23, 2007 17:10:29 GMT -6
Some good minor detail too: proper assortment of shirts and straw hats, some attention paid to the mule train, Kellogg riding a mule, etc.
It bravely made explicit the notion that Custer sent Benteen off out of spite, which was entertaining. But many shortcomings, as Mike has said. Rotten casting of Sitting Bull as a man with an unimpressively squeaky voice ... Reno going into the valley with "90 men" ... total absence of the right wing deployment in either action or battle maps (just one brief mention in the commentary, which of course meant nothing to the viewer without visuals ... Mitch Bouyer as a gnarled old white scout, not a halfbreed ... and so on. Early hopes that we'd get the "minor" characters (sparked by seeing an actor in dundrearies in the trailer) totally quashed. We got Weir, but with no depth; apart from him, just Reno, Benteen, Bouyer, a brief glimpse of Martini, and of course Custer himself. But for a one-hour effort with minimal budget, as Mike says, it could have been a lot worse!
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Feb 23, 2007 17:17:43 GMT -6
Hi Elisabeth
I thought the finale with Bouyer trying to surrender was totally unnecessary. I am not sure why they did that. Was it to nod towards the idea of the panic element? If so I think they picked very much the wrong person to use as an example and an anonymous trooper should have been used.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by Mike Powell on Feb 23, 2007 23:08:25 GMT -6
Mike,
Re the boggy ground at MTC ford, any discussion of that as the condition at time of the fight versus the condition today, which to my untrained eye looked pretty firm? Of course there weren't 20,000 ponies about when I was there. Just wondering if this was presented as an ordinary fact or as a revelation with commentary?
Yours,
Mike Powell
|
|
|
Post by mcaryf on Feb 24, 2007 0:45:21 GMT -6
Hi Mike
They cherry picked some items of testimony and participants' recollections to say there were boggy or even quicksand areas around MT Ford.
Regards
Mike
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 24, 2007 1:25:12 GMT -6
The "quicksand" allegation was put forward by Mike Donahue, who was the resident talking head on the film. (The format was a mix of talking heads -- Donahue and Ron His Horse Is Thunder -- commentary and drama.)
As far as I recall, the worst anyone said in real life about MT Ford at the time was that it was "miry" on the far side. Plenty of Indians managed to cross there without getting bogged down, so this seemed to be one of the more dubious claims in the film.
|
|
|
Post by gary on Feb 24, 2007 7:10:58 GMT -6
I agree with almost all of the above comments. Bouyer did not really come across as he looks in his photograph or as he is usually described. He also seemed too old. I think that bi-racial or mixed race is how how would be described today however.
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Feb 24, 2007 9:08:08 GMT -6
Of course, and my apologies, I was parrotting the descriptions of the time. I should have put it in quotes.
|
|
|
Post by Banned on Feb 24, 2007 10:56:06 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by markland on Feb 24, 2007 11:48:18 GMT -6
To view parts 3-7, click on the link stating "More from this user."
Billy
|
|