Custer's Last Stand ! - What Did You Think Of It ? |
diagralex
|
Coll
I am surprised that nobody has responded to your question yet. The documentary made the usual claims of "The latest evidence" being used and that Custer came close to winning the battle, and then proceeded to churn out facts that were neither new or different. The programme implied that Custer intended to capture the women and children of the village, while being unable to see the warriors " who were having a lay in that morning". It must have been a terrific party the night before, as Custer attacked during the afternoon ! That, according to the documentary, was the closest that Custer came to the village. How then did it make Custer nearly win the battle ? The documentary then suggested that only Captain Weir's company had moved forward to support Custer and that it came within a whisker of joining him. The advance was supported by both Reno and Benteen, although very slowly, as they were encumbered with their wounded. By the time that Captain Weir reached his nearest point to last stand hill, all he could see was Indians over running the last of Custer's men. It was never going to be possible for him to save Custer. Why did the programme also include Mitch Bouyer pleading for his life with Sioux warriors ? This was pure fabrication and hardly merited "the latest evidence" claims. It was also suggested that the cavalry horses were stampeded by blanket waving Indians, leaving Custer and his men on foot. There is some evidence of this happening, but never on the scale implied by the programme. Many troopers still had their horses on last stand hill and used them as a final make shift barricade. It was a great pity that some evidence was adjusted to support the views of the programme, while some was pure invention. However, it was well acted and the scenery looked good. Graham |
||||||||||||
|
Coll
Guest
|
Thanks Graham
Yes. I thought more people may have watched it, considering the comparisons made with Isandlwana on several occasions. I was content to watch it all the way through (I taped it too) and not having adverts was a bonus, even if some scenes I disagreed with, however, I kinda expected to see a few examples which didn't ring true. The filming and detail of the event was pleasing enough, as well as trying to show specific incidents with the decision-maker (Gen. Custer), which did, to me, put this programme a bit more of a step up from others I've seen over the years. A good learning process can be achieved from this series, which could possibly be built on, without trying to give too many alternative versions of events, which then confuse people rather than educate them. I agree, Mitch Bouyer's scene was unnecessary. I had been concerned, having mentioned it elsewhere, that the programme may contort a few facts to make this version of events suit, but if the quality of this drama-documentary is anything to go by, maybe things will improve in the making of such. Thanks again Coll |
||||||||||||
|
a.j
|
I'm going to have my say now
First of all I thought Toby Stephens played Custer extremely well. His behaviour was all correct. Especially his acting during the Last Stand scenes it showed him realizing that the situation looked pretty bleak, where he's looking round and sees Indians closing in from every direction and he says "Oh Lord". Also when his command is getting killed and he can see it in his face but at the same time its a look of 'I'm not finished yet!' The documentary itself did illustrate the 7th Cavalry as it would have looked like at the time of the Little Bighorn. They were all armed correctly (apart from slightly with Custer who had a Colt 'Peacemaker' instead of two bulldog revolvers, however saying that this version of Custer's Last Stand is the only one I can think of where it has shown him using his Remington rifle). As for accuracy I wish they would have shown more of the other positions as well, I know they were mentioned as "The troops Custer left on the ridge." but I think they could have been mentioned a bit more. As for the other characters in the story, major Reno could have had a bigger part, but Benteen was played really well and he had a Southern American accent. Overall it was a very good drama documentary with good acting good facts. The only draw back was it only had a bit of detail, really it needed to be on one hour and a half to two hours. |
||||||||||||
|
Coll
Guest
|
A.J.
You're right about Toby Stephens. He portrayed Gen. Custer well. Apparently, judging from articles I've read about him on the net, he has a tendency to take on roles of flawed individuals (real life or made up). I wonder what other historical military figure he could portray ?! It is also true what you say about him using a rifle in the last stand, being the only version that I know of as well, where he is seen to do so, as he is usually shown with a pistol and sword in his hands or 2 pistols. Ian Knight once described how it must have been in the moment of realisation at Isandlwana, when the soldiers became aware that there was absolutely no way they were going to leave the battlefield alive. As for 'I'm not finished yet', I'm sure most soldiers in any last stand situation, would fight on, as long as they could, even knowing they were going to die very soon. I'd like to know that I'd do the same, but having never been in such a predicament, it truly makes me wonder, how brave I would be, as I would hate to think I would let myself and my fellow soldiers down at the last moment. Certainly food for thought, on how we'd like to be - compared to how we would be - in a battlefield no-win situation. Coll |
||||||||||||
|
Custer's Last Stand ! - What Did You Think Of It ? |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.