Historical Movies (1 Viewer)

marco55

Brigadier General
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
11,407
Except for "The Free State of Jones" I haven't heard of any coming out.Has anyone else heard of any?
Mark
 
Yes, Birth of a Nation, about the Nat Turner revolt. It's not a remake of the D.W. Griffith 1915 movie but according to the director he borrowed the title on purpose.
 
Brad/Mark

A few months ago I wrote a three part magazine article about the making of John Huston's version of Stephen Crane's ACW novel The Red Badge of Courage. Part of the article dealt with the difficulty in raising the finance for the film from MGM'S Studio Chief Louis B Mayer as per below:-

MGM Studio Chief, Louis B Mayer, was having difficulty controlling his anger as he attempted to persuade Dore Schary-MGM'S Vice President in Charge of Production- not to film The Red Badge of Courage. Leaning across his huge cream- coloured desk he glared at Schary and said "Dore, I have been in this business for over a quarter of a century and believe me when I tell you- civil war movies do not make money. American moviegoers don't like to see Americans killing Americans, its as simple as that." Schary quietly replied " But Louis, Gone with the Wind was a massive box office hit for MGM and that had a civil war story." Mayer retorted "Yes, but it was never just a civil war film, it had Clark Gable as its star, it had Vivien Leigh and Olivia de Havilland as the female leads, we made a romantic picture in glorious Technicolor, that's what the people came to see." Mayer continued "This proposed Huston picture has no female role, therefore no love interest, it has no discernible plot and worst of all it has a cast of complete unknowns. Goddammit! Dore, trust me this picture will fail and fail badly."

The movie did indeed fail and certainly not helped by the butchering during the editing processing by the "studio suits". However, the essence of Mayer's comment that civil war movies don't make money I believe still holds true today.
Bob
 
I wonder how 'Glory' did?

The TV series North & South was surely a success in the States?
 
I wonder how 'Glory' did?

The TV series North & South was surely a success in the States?

Glory has garnered extensive praise for its groundbreaking portrayal of black troops and its appropriate historical symbolism but when it was released in 1989 there had not been a motion picture produced for the big screen with a central Civil War theme for nearly three decades.

I personally considered it to be one of the best ACW movies I have seen. A stirring dramatic piece of entertainment directed with an almost reverential tone and yet at the same time dealing with the humanities that puts such a film on a personal level. If I had to nit-pick it at all it would be that the film gives the impression that most of the Fifty-Fourth's soldiers were former slaves when in fact, the atypical regiment was recruited in the North, so the vast majority of the men had always been free but I can understand why the script changed that fact.

It was nominated for a number of Academy Awards (but completely ignored for any of the major Oscars) and won three but the movie company did not spend very much on advertising and unfortunately it shows in the box-office returns:- The film's budget was a little over $18 million and its final gross after a global seventeen week theatrical run was approx. $26.8 million.

Hollywood's rule of thumb to judge whether a film has proved popular with the public is that it needs to make at least twice its production budget. Glory fell far short of their thumb rule by almost $10million which made it highly unlikely for other film studios to greenlight similar movies. Hence possibly why we have had no other mainstream ACW movies since 1989.

Popularity of any TV series such as North & South I feel cannot be compared to a big screen production as it is piped into the living rooms of a practically captured audience rather than them going out to a cinema and actually paying for admission.
 
Last edited:
Glory has garnered extensive praise for its groundbreaking portrayal of black troops and its appropriate historical symbolism but when it was released in 1989 there had not been a motion picture produced for the big screen with a central Civil War theme for nearly three decades.

I personally considered it to be one of the best ACW movies I have seen. A stirring dramatic piece of entertainment directed with an almost reverential tone and yet at the same time dealing with the humanities that puts such a film on a personal level. If I had to nit-pick it at all it would be that the film gives the impression that most of the Fifty-Fourth's soldiers were former slaves when in fact, the atypical regiment was recruited in the North, so the vast majority of the men had always been free but I can understand why the script changed that fact.

It was nominated for a number of Academy Awards (but completely ignored for any of the major Oscars) and won three but the movie company did not spend very much on advertising and unfortunately it shows in the box-office returns:- The film's budget was a little over $18 million and its final gross after a global seventeen week theatrical run was approx. $26.8 million.

Hollywood's rule of thumb to judge whether a film has proved popular with the public is that it needs to make at least twice its production budget. Glory fell far short of their thumb rule by almost $10million which made it highly unlikely for other film studios to greenlight similar movies. Hence possibly why we have had no other mainstream ACW movies since 1989.

Popularity of any TV series such as North & South I feel cannot be compared to a big screen production as it is piped into the living rooms of a practically captured audience rather than them going out to a cinema and actually paying for admission.


The reason that GLORY did not do as well at the box offie is that is was made with a political view instead of reality. It portrayed the Black Man fighting for his freedom from slavery but in reality they were fighting to save their way of life in a free nation. As you pointed out these Black men were already free they just wanted to be treated equal. To bad hollywood always ruins a good war movie with it's liberal slant. I am curious to see what message the Free State of Jones is trying to convey.

Howard Hulsebosch
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top