Santa Fe Trail (youtube)

[Concerned American]

Braveheart is generally bollox.
Another Gibson film that is bollox is The Patriot. All those happy black folk fighting the English for their freedom. Laughable.

Just as laughable as your post. What was that you were saying about consistency?

 

[Concerned American]

I am saying it isnt history. Its just bollocks masquerading as history.

I guess you Welsh morons have trouble distinguishing between FICTION and history--or is it just you?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

I guess you Welsh morons have trouble distinguishing between FICTION and history--or is it just you?

I think that you are out of your depth in this conversation. The film purports to be history. All of the characters are people from history.
It isnt history,its bollocks. But it could persuade people that it is historical. There are no warnings on the film.

 

[jbrownson0831]

I think that you are out of your depth in this conversation. The film purports to be history. All of the characters are people from history.
It isnt history,its bollocks. But it could persuade people that it is historical. There are no warnings on the film.

What a kook.

 

[Concerned American]

I think that you are out of your depth in this conversation. The film purports to be history. All of the characters are people from history.
It isnt history,its bollocks. But it could persuade people that it is historical. There are no warnings on the film.

In America, we are perfectly aware of what is made for entertainment. You need counseling if you think anything about that movie was meant to be factual. BTW, did Dickens or Shakespeare have disclaimers on their works that told you they were NOT factual accounts? Since, we spoke of Braveheart and The Patriot--did you need a disclaimer on either of those? Just STFU and climb out of the gene pool--it is too deep for you.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Its propaganda.. Should we be teaching kids that slavery is a good thing ? That is what this film does..

Flynn is an attractive and charismatic leading man. But he is grooming here.

America is in a frenzy of banning books at the moment but kids can access this rubbish any time they want. How can you support banning the Life of Rosa Parks but stay silent over this ?

Hypocrisy.

I wouldnt ban it but it needs calling out.

Hey dumbfuck!!!
The vast majority westerns that include the civil war are for the yankees.

 

[Flopper]

I saw this the other day. For a while I thought I was watching a satire. Its about the lead up to the civil war. Its almost totally revisionist.
The South are the good guys and the sneaky northerners are the bad guys.
Errol Flynn plays Jeb Stuart heroically fighting to save the slaves from that evil John Brown, played in wild eyed mode by Raymond Massey.
Van heflin plays an abolitionist who is shown to be a bad lot motivated by greed rather than any moral standard.

Flynn argues away slavery by stating that the South will sort out "its issues" in its own time. Rather than the truth of it which saw slavery enshrined on their constitution.

The low point is the scene where a black woman, called Mammy by Flynn, gives her opinion on emancipation.

If that there is this freedom , I doan want none of it Yessir.

Ronnie Reagan plays Custer who is happy to agree with Flynns assessment of slavery. The longer you watch it the more absurd it all becomes. I seem to remember that Flynn was accused of being a nazi sympathiser and this is good evidence.

All in all a shameful piece of work by people who were either stupid or evil.

Tommy, this is an interesting movie for several reasons other than it's entertainment value.

Had there not been a Gone With the Wind, there would not have not been a Santa Fe Trail. Gone With the Wind, a Selznick production release through MGM was a big success when it was released in 1940 and Warner Bros. was anxious to match the MGM success. Warner wanted to get a movie released as soon as possible to benefit from the public's new found interest in the Civil War. Unfortunately, Warner didn't have a script that had any connection to the civil war. Hal Wallis said he had a western script that could be adapted to include various people involved in the war. Warner went for it and budgeted a million dollars for the picture. When Wallis was later question about the historical accuracy, he said, "you wanted a movie that would make money and draw the Gone With the Wind crowd and you got it." He was right. The movie was a big success with a box office office over twice the budget.

The movie is also notable because it introduced a new technology to movie making, Vitasound which was basically the high fidelity sound of the 1950s and 60s. Unfortunately movie theaters had pretty bad sound systems and thus the new sound made little difference to audiences. However the improved sound recording on films encourage theaters to upgrade their sound systems. Within a few years movie sound quality had increased significantly

Much of the success of the move was due to the release. It was released in Santa Fe over a 3 day festival funded mostly by Warner Bros. The movie was shown each day. There were a number of events during the festival featuring various movie stars. The entire cast and a number of other Warner actors attended the festival. There were two trains sent to Santa Fe, one from the west carrying actors and other famous people and one from east carrying reporters, critics and other prominent people. Although the film got good reviews and made money, it did not capture it's place in history as did Gone With the Wind.

 

[Flopper]

The films message is abhorrent. Like watching one of Hitlers films.

Tommy, many great films do not carry a great message. A good example is D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation. It glorified the KKK, and it's view of slavery would be abhorrent to most people today. When released in major cities, ushers wore KKK robes and it sparked parades and demostrations. Historians believe this movie was a major factor in the rise of the KKK before and after WWI.

Birth of a Nation was an epic historical drama about the American civil war and the rise of Ku Klux Klan. It was not anywhere near the accuracy of the real history but it was a pretty amazing film for 1915, utilizing a lot of the modern film making techniques which became a standard in the industry.

 

[Flopper]

In America, we are perfectly aware of what is made for entertainment. You need counseling if you think anything about that movie was meant to be factual. BTW, did Dickens or Shakespeare have disclaimers on their works that told you they were NOT factual accounts? Since, we spoke of Braveheart and The Patriot--did you need a disclaimer on either of those? Just STFU and climb out of the gene pool--it is too deep for you.

In case we aren't aware of what is fiction a disclaimer appears on almost all films between 1932 and 2000 and should appear on this film even it is based on historical events and people.

The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

 

[Concerned American]

In case we aren't aware of what is fiction a disclaimer appears on almost all films between 1932 and 2000 and should appear on this film even it is based on historical events and people.

The story, all names, characters, and incidents portrayed in this production are fictitious. No identification with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, and products is intended or should be inferred.

I was unaware that the disclaimers were on all films. I have seen them at the beginning of films that parallel current events, however.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Tommy, many great films do not carry a great message. A good example is D.W. Griffith, Birth of a Nation. It glorified the KKK, and it's view of slavery would be abhorrent to most people today. When released in major cities, ushers wore KKK robes and it sparked parades and demostrations. Historians believe this movie was a major factor in the rise of the KKK before and after WWI.

Birth of a Nation was an epic historical drama about the American civil war and the rise of Ku Klux Klan. It was not anywhere near the accuracy of the real history but it was a pretty amazing film for 1915, utilizing a lot of the modern film making techniques which became a standard in the industry.

Birth of a Nation is a great comparison. It showed the power of film o form public opinion.

I suppose when you look at Gone With the Wins its easier to understand how santa Fe Trail was made. I believe that Hattie Macdaniel was not allowed to collect her oscar in the auditorium at the time. Encouraging that she got one though.

My Grandparents couldnt get in to see Gone With the Wind it was sold out.. But they knew the theatre owner and he let them sit in the aisle to watch it on the proviso that they left if the safety officer showed up.

 

[there4eyeM]

It may be lamentable that people swallow such attempts at "entertainment" so well and so frequently, but the freedom to make such artistic efforts is more valuable than the risk of offending.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

It may be lamentable that people swallow such attempts at "entertainment" so well and so frequently, but the freedom to make such artistic efforts is more valuable than the risk of offending.

There is an educational value in watching these films. If you were studying the 30s for example.

 

[Flopper]

I was unaware that the disclaimers were on all films. I have seen them at the beginning of films that parallel current events, however.

I should not of said all films. The disclaimer on documentaries varies depending on the content. Documentary film makers are held to a higher standard by the courts because by there very nature, audiences expect the truth. When they create a documentary containing footage about people or organizations, the documentarians should have solid evidence for their claims that would stand up in court.

Also before 1932 when MGM was sued for damages did not typically carry any disclaimer.

Many films modified their disclaimer to fit the material. The Dragnet TV series carried a disclaimer that the "The story you are about to hear/see is true. The names have been changed to protect the innocent." Also, over the years, disclaimers have been expended to contain copywrite violation warnings, protection of animals, etc.

I'm pretty sure that Santa Fe Trail carried a disclaimer, considering the amount fictitious material in the film.

 

[Flopper]

There is an educational value in watching these films. If you were studying the 30s for example.

One of most education features in old films is the difference in mores and customs of the times that no longer exist. People in the 19th and first half of the 20th century had vastly different opinions on everything from fashion to religion to race to goverment to sex, to treatment of crime, etc.

 

[Flopper]

Birth of a Nation is a great comparison. It showed the power of film o form public opinion.

I suppose when you look at Gone With the Wins its easier to understand how santa Fe Trail was made. I believe that Hattie Macdaniel was not allowed to collect her oscar in the auditorium at the time. Encouraging that she got one though.

My Grandparents couldnt get in to see Gone With the Wind it was sold out.. But they knew the theatre owner and he let them sit in the aisle to watch it on the proviso that they left if the safety officer showed up.

She did accept the Oscar at the academy awards. David O. Selznick had to call in a favor to get the Ambassador Hotel’s Cocoanut Grove Nightclub to make an exception to its strict “no Blacks” policy.

Many white people believed Hattie McDaniel's was the kind black that all blacks should aspire, subevent and filled with humility . Upon receiving the award she said, “I sincerely hope I shall always be a credit to my race and to the motion picture industry,” This was exactly what most white people wanted to hear from blacks in those day, "to be credit to my race". That phrase has been used over an over.

McDaniel's was often at odds with the NAACP which sought major changes now in the treatment of Blacks. McDaniel was far more pragmatic. If she had to play the Mammy or the poor black serving the white man that was acceptable as long she got the roles. She worked hard to help other blacks get into movies and she cultivated friendships with many of the top white stars in Hollywood but the one thing she was not was a revolutionary.

The Mystery—and Controversy—Surrounding Hattie McDaniel’s Missing Oscar

In 1940, Hattie McDaniel became the first Black actor ever to win an Oscar. About 30 years later, that Oscar disappeared.

www.mentalfloss.com

 

[Concerned American]

I'm pretty sure that Santa Fe Trail carried a disclaimer, considering the amount fictitious material in the film

It was a 1940 film. It was not a documentary. It was well known that it was a fictional account at the time of release. The premise that it was an historical account is ignorant.

 

[Flopper]

It was a 1940 film. It was not a documentary. It was well known that it was a fictional account at the time of release. The premise that it was an historical account is ignorant.

And not being a documentary makes the need for a disclaimer important. MGM learned that in 1932 when they had to pay 2.5 million in todays dollars in a defamation suit. This movie is considered to be historical fiction; that is, a story that takes readers to a time and place in the past. How closely the story matches historical facts is at the discretion of the author. Clearly the purpose of the movie is entertain, not to educate. Even so creators of such works need to protect themselves with a disclaimers that states that it is a work of fiction.

 

[Concerned American]

And not being a documentary makes the need for a disclaimer important. MGM learn that in 1932 when they had to pay an equivalent in todays dollar, 2.5 million in a defamation suit.

The fact remains that the movie was NEVER released as a factual account of anything and Tommy's misguided effort to depict it as a factual historical account is ludicrous. I don't care if it had a disclaimer or not. It was NEVER used as a historical lesson.

 

[Flopper]

The fact remains that the movie was NEVER released as a factual account of anything and Tommy's misguided effort to depict it as a factual historical account is ludicrous. I don't care if it had a disclaimer or not. It was NEVER used as a historical lesson.

Even in fiction, facts are still important, particularly in historical fiction. The events have to at least seem realistic to the movie goer and that will not happen if the viewer sees major factual discrepancies. The more false facts, the more unrealistic the movie becomes. The viewer realizes that he is watching fantasy fiction and that is not what he paid to see.