New Custer Movie (2 Viewers)

[Louis Badolato]

Custer was a man of his time and enviroment.We can look back and see that the Indian was treated unfairly but admit it or not they waged savage war and it wasn't pretty. BOTH sides commited atrocities.Life was a much harder deal back then and it was survival of the fittest.We can argue forever if Europeans should have come and took over the Americas but that can be the case of every place in the world as peoples has supplanted other peoples throughout mankind's history.
Mark

Mark,

What you are saying has the aura of truth to it, but lacks the substance. In 1800 there were 19,000,000 Indians in the United States. By 1900 there were less than 100,000. We deliberately massacred them. From Small Pox blankets through the Trail of Tears to Wounded Knee, anyone familiar with United States History should be aware that our government's policy with regard to the Indians was slightly to the right of the Nazi's policy towards the Jews. Comparing the few thousand people they managed to kill while we were wiping them out is, frankly, silly. Sure they committed atrocities, but compared to the genocide we directed their way, its a cup of water next to an ocean.

In the 1980's, I lived in Texas, and would go to visit friends in Avant, Oklahoma, and pass through the Choctaw Indian reservations. I took trips to the 4 corners region, and passed through Navajo and Zuni Reservations. What I saw appalled me. The poverty was horrifying.

I am a proud American, and love my country, but I make no excuses for the horrible things we did to the Indians as a policy, starting with Andrew Jackson, and not ending until recently. Whenever I pass an Indian Casino today, I think to myself that we stole the entire continent from these people, and now they are getting it back one dollar at a time.

 

[Spitfrnd]

Mark,

What you are saying has the aura of truth to it, but lacks the substance. In 1800 there were 19,000,000 Indians in the United States. By 1900 there were less than 100,000. We deliberately massacred them. From Small Pox blankets through the Trail of Tears to Wounded Knee, anyone familiar with United States History should be aware that our government's policy with regard to the Indians was slightly to the right of the Nazi's policy towards the Jews. Comparing the few thousand people they managed to kill while we were wiping them out is, frankly, silly. Sure they committed atrocities, but compared to the genocide we directed their way, its a cup of water next to an ocean.

In the 1980's, I lived in Texas, and would go to visit friends in Avant, Oklahoma, and pass through the Choctaw Indian reservations. I took trips to the 4 corners region, and passed through Navajo and Zuni Reservations. What I saw appalled me. The poverty was horrifying.

I am a proud American, and love my country, but I make no excuses for the horrible things we did to the Indians as a policy, starting with Andrew Jackson, and not ending until recently. Whenever I pass an Indian Casino today, I think to myself that we stole the entire continent from these people, and now they are getting it back one dollar at a time.

I very much agree with you Louis and Custer will never be a hero to me. Yes he was a product of his environment and had his orders but that does not absolve him for me. I can still enjoy my Ford movies and may see this one eventually but that does not change my distaste for the man or certain of his actions. I do happen to know my history on this as well.

 

[marco55]

I'm gong to start a new thread on this.
Mark

 

[UKReb]

The reason for his defeat at the little big horn,was that CUSTER was a military incompetant of the highest calibre and should never have been in command of any troops but the civil war provided the opportunity for the WEST POINT reject to rise to notoriety and gain some influential friends.If CUSTER was anything ,he was surely vain,brave and foolish all the prerequisite attributes of an incompetent leader of soldiers in battle.

Clarification required here to my post in answer to the above:

Custer was not A WEST POINT reject and neither was he an incompetent leader of soldiers in battle as I attempted to explain with some historical facts-the fact that the OP remains unconvinced is of course his perogative. I also know my history on this extraordinary man but it does not mean I am a Custer advocate.

Whether Custer was a genocidal maniac or any worse than Andrew Jackson, Davy Crockett, Robert Rogers, Bearcoat Nelson A Miles or Colonel J. M. Chivington and his Colorado Volunteers is for another discussion-All I was doing was correcting the completely incorrect original statement.

Reb

 

[DMNamiot]

Hi Reb,

You raised some very good points in you post with clear facts. But my friend when did facts ever have anything to do with opinions...

All in all an interesting thread.

Dave

 

[UKReb]

Hi Reb,

You raised some very good points in you post with clear facts. But my friend when did facts ever have anything to do with opinions...

All in all an interesting thread.

Dave

Yeah! you're right. Subsequently, Reb has left the building on this one and will bow to the much more learned posters on here than me.

 

[maddadicus]

Until the political BS found it's way into the thread, I was hoping to discuss ,what might have been Custer's reasoning for his battleplan and subsequent failure. I have always felt that he was premature to start the action, when he was not in any geographical or strategic position to actually support Renos 120 men and the fact that he still had near 45% of his total command, not even on or close to the field of battle. Custer was caught and destroyed in detail ( 1 unit at a time ),without any real chance of reform..Hopefully, fact backed forum members will come back . Michael

 

[forlornhoper]

sorry if i have upset anyone but i thought i was free to express my interpretation of the historical fact or have i studied the wrong history of america,and its treatment of the native american indians.I am sure i read somewhere that the native americans were there before europeans landed and were therfore invaders and the native americans were merely defending their country,if i have that wrong then please let me know,Perhaps this thread can begin to rewrite history to suit the members who find the discussion uncomfortable.History makes us all discover uncomfortable truths about our predesessors being british i know this only too well,but that does not mean we should supress facts or opinions ,we should embrace how much we have developed and discuss the past dispassionately.Please accept my appologies if i have caused upset and will continue to enjoy debating issues in the future,regards to all ken

 

[maddadicus]

sorry if i have upset anyone but i thought i was free to express my interpretation of the historical fact or have i studied the wrong history of america,and its treatment of the native american indians.I am sure i read somewhere that the native americans were there before europeans landed and were therfore invaders and the native americans were merely defending their country,if i have that wrong then please let me know,Perhaps this thread can begin to rewrite history to suit the members who find the discussion uncomfortable.History makes us all discover uncomfortable truths about our predesessors being british i know this only too well,but that does not mean we should supress facts or opinions ,we should embrace how much we have developed and discuss the past dispassionately.Please accept my appologies if i have caused upset and will continue to enjoy debating issues in the future,regards to all ken

Dear Ken, very often it is the way we all say things at any given time..The subject initially was about Custer and the last stand. It then became Custer was the Anti-Christ..Custer followed policy at that time, but so did President Grant, Sheridan, Crook, Terry, and god knows how many other American military leaders of that day. In my history research, my eyes gloss over at the politcal whys and hows something was accomplished. I am more of the small picture, military strategy type. Give me maps, troop dispositions, and blow by blow battle movement anytime. That is the only way that I could ever enjoy reading about the worlds battles. It is because of the bad, real reasons for every historical conflict that I tune out the polictical stuff. Who could enjoy the Zulu war, if they were bitter that the British actually picked the fight with a peaceful, soverign nation ,technologically inferior..Or Marshall Zukovs massive tank battles with the Germans, if all you could do, was wonder which country had the most attrocities..Though some battlles might be ideoligically clean, they are few and far between. If you want to talk about why Custer chose to do battle with only 1/2 his men, I am glad to meet you. Why Custer was there in the first place, I personally could care less. Keeps me from joining the God ,for the last 200 years ,we are so immoral crowd. I refuse to take the blame..Michael

 

[OzDigger]

sorry if i have upset anyone but i thought i was free to express my interpretation of the historical fact or have i studied the wrong history of america,and its treatment of the native american indians.I am sure i read somewhere that the native americans were there before europeans landed and were therfore invaders and the native americans were merely defending their country,if i have that wrong then please let me know,Perhaps this thread can begin to rewrite history to suit the members who find the discussion uncomfortable.History makes us all discover uncomfortable truths about our predesessors being british i know this only too well,but that does not mean we should supress facts or opinions ,we should embrace how much we have developed and discuss the past dispassionately.Please accept my appologies if i have caused upset and will continue to enjoy debating issues in the future,regards to all ken

Discussion about battles and history is welcome but as with most forums the introduction of politics usually results in someone getting upset which is why political discussions are not encouraged here.

Personally I don't have any strong political beliefs so I'm happy to discuss any battle(s) with or without politics. And let's face it, War and Politics are one and the same, but I try to respect the forum owners wishes in this matter.

I have noticed that everyone here feels they can be objective, but of course we tend to be less objective about something in which we have a personal interest. Therefore it's best to avoid political discussions with those members that collect toys/models representing the specific battle(s) you wish to discuss

 

[trooper]

To a certain extent politics does enter the Custer scenario as it is evident from the comments he made to the Indian scouts to the effect that "when he was the Great White Father in Washington he would remember his scouts with favour" which indicates his ambition. Personally I think this was a major factor in the forced marches he made in order to gain 24 hours over the other columns so that he and his regiment could claim all the credit. At this point the men and horses were exhausted but were then pitched into combat. The personality clashes within the regiment then came into the equation, Benteen was sent on a pointless sweep well out of the way, in my opinion so that he wouldn't share in the glory, and Reno was commited to make first contact so that he would tie up the bulk of the warriors. Custer himself moved round with the intention of capturing the women and children and then, charging through the village and taking the warriors from the rear would "rescue" Reno. This would ensure he would get all the credit, Reno would suffer further humiliation and Benteen would be remembered as the man who didn't fight. Unfortunately his reputation as a great Indian fighter was spurious as he had only been engaged in one major action, the attack on the sleeping village at Wa****a, and the remainder of his experience had in the main been confined to long pursuits of an elusive enemy who peeled off in ones and twos from the main body until all he was left with would be half a dozen pony tracks which would then split off in different directions leaving the troops frustrated and exhausted. all of his beliefs revolved around the Indians desire to flee from him, and when confronted by a foe not only prepared to stand but also be eager to fight he just didn't know how to respond. The sight of those braves boiling out of the village like ants from a disturbed nest must have left him dumbfounded. We will never know exactly what happened to his command, but Benteen was right to stay with Reno, to have moved off to try to find Custer would have left the regiment still fragmented which could then have been overwhelmed in detail, or if he combined with Reno to find Custer would have meant abandoning the wounded, which was impossible. Custer's self opinion was the biggest factor in his downfall.

 

[damian]

One thing no-one can deny is that there is a perceptible shift in the way movies have portrayed the West. Initially it was clear cut (Stagecoach etc) Brave soldiers savage Indians. Fort Apache etc were similar. Lots of Irish corporals singing "I will take you home again Katleen." to Maureen o Hara. There was High Noon you know a square jawed Gary Cooper refusing to back down to evil and being abandoned by all the town folk except his quaker wife who was the epitome of blond femininity. Then is got deep (The Searchers) Maybe there was racism involved you know the Duke could not tolerate the fact that Natalie had gone native. It just took him five years to accept it took the audience 3 hours to get to the point.
Then we had all the deconstruction courtesy of Clint (The Man with no name etc). Sam Peckinham then did Billy the Kid which showed a few bits of female anatomy and used counter culture heroes as the actors. Then The Wild Bunch which over threw the Magnificnet Seven as the epitome of masculine honor. There was no honor just a bunch of squabbling violent men out for what they could get. Soldier Blue which I have not seen ( I don't think I could stomach it as I cannot stand the site of blood) then attempted to draw direct links between the current situation in the US and it's history. Recently we have had the new age cowboy ( Dances with Wolves) and the minority cowboy (Possee)
There have been a few more recent efforts however my movie going ended about five years ago so I cannot really comment on them. Seems we are waiting for Sean Penn to make a Custer Movie. At least it won't be as boring as that one about the hitch hiker getting lost in Alaska although with Sean you never know. At least we know Custer was happily married.
As an aside I would recommend anyone who wants to hear a good song then listen to the Man in Black "Johnny Cash" sing the Ballad of Ira Hayes.

 

[Aleš]

I just hope that Indians will be play by indians.I hate this old movies when white man play indians,like Burt Lanchester(who is great actor) but he can not play indian or someother white man play indian,it is not realistic so i hope they will put real indians to play indians,like this fellow name Greyeyes and stuff,because it is more realistic.
So did anyone know when this new Custer movie will be released?
If i am a producer i will put a RIDLEY SCOTT for direct the movie(Gladiator,Black Hawk down,...) or EDWARD ZWIEK (the last samuraj).
I think Brad Pitt is good Choice for Custer,maybe Keeanu Reeves for Benten,John Malkowich for Reno(he can play good the people who have issues with drink or psihology) or maybe George Clooney can play the Reno,but i am not sure i think he looks too cool for the part

 

[maddadicus]

I just hope that Indians will be play by indians.I hate this old movies when white man play indians,like Burt Lanchester(who is great actor) but he can not play indian or someother white man play indian,it is not realistic so i hope they will put real indians to play indians,like this fellow name Greyeyes and stuff,because it is more realistic.
So did anyone know when this new Custer movie will be released?
If i am a producer i will put a RIDLEY SCOTT for direct the movie(Gladiator,Black Hawk down,...) or EDWARD ZWIEK (the last samuraj).
I think Brad Pitt is good Choice for Custer,maybe Keeanu Reeves for Benten,John Malkowich for Reno(he can play good the people who have issues with drink or psihology) or maybe George Clooney can play the Reno,but i am not sure i think he looks too cool for the part

I agree about your choice of directors, but I hope that they would not get an all star cast. There are a number of great character actors out there ,that would honestly portray their person, without any star factor, causing non historical script rewrites..Also, there is now a large number of Native American actors out there to fill in the Indian ranks. Michael

 

[maddadicus]

One thing no-one can deny is that there is a perceptible shift in the way movies have portrayed the West. Initially it was clear cut (Stagecoach etc) Brave soldiers savage Indians. Fort Apache etc were similar. Lots of Irish corporals singing "I will take you home again Katleen." to Maureen o Hara. There was High Noon you know a square jawed Gary Cooper refusing to back down to evil and being abandoned by all the town folk except his quaker wife who was the epitome of blond femininity. Then is got deep (The Searchers) Maybe there was racism involved you know the Duke could not tolerate the fact that Natalie had gone native. It just took him five years to accept it took the audience 3 hours to get to the point.
Then we had all the deconstruction courtesy of Clint (The Man with no name etc). Sam Peckinham then did Billy the Kid which showed a few bits of female anatomy and used counter culture heroes as the actors. Then The Wild Bunch which over threw the Magnificnet Seven as the epitome of masculine honor. There was no honor just a bunch of squabbling violent men out for what they could get. Soldier Blue which I have not seen ( I don't think I could stomach it as I cannot stand the site of blood) then attempted to draw direct links between the current situation in the US and it's history. Recently we have had the new age cowboy ( Dances with Wolves) and the minority cowboy (Possee)
There have been a few more recent efforts however my movie going ended about five years ago so I cannot really comment on them. Seems we are waiting for Sean Penn to make a Custer Movie. At least it won't be as boring as that one about the hitch hiker getting lost in Alaska although with Sean you never know. At least we know Custer was happily married.
As an aside I would recommend anyone who wants to hear a good song then listen to the Man in Black "Johnny Cash" sing the Ballad of Ira Hayes.

That is why Son of Morning Star still holds up as a reasonbly accurate movie. It told the Indians perspective of events leading up to the meet on the Bighorn. Also Benteen's distain and Reno's indecision were well represented by the actors who portrayed them. Never offered in DVD, it was a made for U.S. tv event, so I am not sure of worldwide availability...Michael

 

[maddadicus]

To a certain extent politics does enter the Custer scenario as it is evident from the comments he made to the Indian scouts to the effect that "when he was the Great White Father in Washington he would remember his scouts with favour" which indicates his ambition. Personally I think this was a major factor in the forced marches he made in order to gain 24 hours over the other columns so that he and his regiment could claim all the credit. At this point the men and horses were exhausted but were then pitched into combat. The personality clashes within the regiment then came into the equation, Benteen was sent on a pointless sweep well out of the way, in my opinion so that he wouldn't share in the glory, and Reno was commited to make first contact so that he would tie up the bulk of the warriors. Custer himself moved round with the intention of capturing the women and children and then, charging through the village and taking the warriors from the rear would "rescue" Reno. This would ensure he would get all the credit, Reno would suffer further humiliation and Benteen would be remembered as the man who didn't fight. Unfortunately his reputation as a great Indian fighter was spurious as he had only been engaged in one major action, the attack on the sleeping village at Wa****a, and the remainder of his experience had in the main been confined to long pursuits of an elusive enemy who peeled off in ones and twos from the main body until all he was left with would be half a dozen pony tracks which would then split off in different directions leaving the troops frustrated and exhausted. all of his beliefs revolved around the Indians desire to flee from him, and when confronted by a foe not only prepared to stand but also be eager to fight he just didn't know how to respond. The sight of those braves boiling out of the village like ants from a disturbed nest must have left him dumbfounded. We will never know exactly what happened to his command, but Benteen was right to stay with Reno, to have moved off to try to find Custer would have left the regiment still fragmented which could then have been overwhelmed in detail, or if he combined with Reno to find Custer would have meant abandoning the wounded, which was impossible. Custer's self opinion was the biggest factor in his downfall.

The oher Reno factor was that he only had some 50 of his own men available, wounded and whole. Hours later, survivors of the retreat would trickle in, after hiding out most of the day..To Benteen, Reno looked frazzled and his command decimated. He still would have had to leave a large portion of his men to defend the camp and there was still the issue of the pack train..Custer wanted the ammo and such, but there was no fast march in those pack *****. And over unknown terrain, an unknown location for Custer, I never figured out, how Benteen could have saved him in the first place, if you think out the logistics involved..Michael

 

[Spitfrnd]

That is why Son of Morning Star still holds up as a reasonbly accurate movie. It told the Indians perspective of events leading up to the meet on the Bighorn. Also Benteen's distain and Reno's indecision were well represented by the actors who portrayed them. Never offered in DVD, it was a made for U.S. tv event, so I am not sure of worldwide availability...Michael

That is a pity, perhaps the hype for this one may bring it out.

 

[marco55]

On the subject of movies one called Geronimo with Wes Studi and Jason Patric.Studi is a great actor who plays Geronimo and Patric plays Lt. Gatewood who historically was a friend of the indians and that's why he was never promoted.A very good movie in my opinion.
Mark

 

[Spitfrnd]

On the subject of movies one called Geronimo with Wes Studi and Jason Patric.Studi is a great actor who plays Geronimo and Patric plays Lt. Gatewood who historically was a friend of the indians and that's why he was never promoted.A very good movie in my opinion.
Mark

I enjoy that one from time to time myself. Great scene with Patric's cavalry horse at one point.

 

[Aleš]

There is another Geronimo movie i like more.It is also filmed in the 90 i think somewhere 1993 and it is not play by Wes Study.It is also great movie,lots of battles.It is start when young Goyatle(later know as Geronimo) running from Mexican army,and than they attack the army,....very good movie.I must get it on DVD because this one i have in VHS,but i do not have VCR no more haha