Western Movie Rambles

[JackFavell]

I feel like I should have known who Johnson was long before this. He seems to be in everything I see lately. But his unassuming presence is easily missed.

 

I only know that if I were in a room with him, I'd be blushing from head to toe, and unable to speak....

 

I wonder if Lynn would mind if I ramble here confusedly about the rest of the movie?

 

I guess because of my past with this movie, I have always had a hard time watching it. I mentioned somewhere else that I saw part of it on my last day of high school. They showed it in the auditorium for those who did not skip school that day, and it was an awful print, and an awful experience. They couldn't have picked a worse movie for high school seniors. None of us understood it or cared one whit about old soldiers, young soldiers or dogs, for that matter. It was hot and stuffy, and people were talking and laughing through the entire thing. Ugh. I left before the movie was over.

 

So I had to overcome a little chip on my shoulder in order to watch this movie. Here are my first impressions, and I apologize if they are not popular. This is why I wanted to talk over the movie, because I wonder now if Ford included a subtext of men set up to fail by their own system. I think after reading some of Lynn's thread (particularly the significance of the dogs) that he did.

 

My most immediate reaction to the beginning of the movie was one of irritation. Why were these soldiers in that area in the first place? They seemed so wrongheaded in their approach to the land, the native Americans and their place in that landscape. In fact, the soldiers are shown in a long, dark, deluded march, in their blue and yellow uniforms. They are a stupidly vivid and slow moving target, like a big black snake on red dirt. They seemed almost bungling and hugely swollen on the landscape. Every command took forever to implement, as it was relayed down the line. The bugler was the only means of communication, a loud and possibly dangerous way of communicating, it seems to me. These men were at the mercy of a military system that was outmoded and archaic. In contrast, almost everything else in the movie moved quickly and gracefully, unencumbered by the huge numbers that the soldiers had to deal with.

 

The first shot that took my breathe away was that of the buffalo on the prairie.... these magnificent beasts all moving as one... in such contrast to the soldiers and their long parade. And then the Indians, in their sky blue and bright red, backlit by the sun, moving quietly and efficiently across the mountaintops, each an individual but still part of the group. These images moved me, but seemed at odds wth the story being told.

 

I hope I haven't made anyone uncomfortable by bringing up my confusion and I certainly don't want to ruin anyone's enjoyment, but I found things were a little different for me than the "elegiac" qualities that everyone always speaks of when they talk about SWAYR. I found those aspects too, but more toward the end of the movie, and I had a hard time turning my attention that direction after having such an initial reaction to the start of the film.

[rohanaka]

Hi Jackie... I cannot imagine a highschool showing THIS movie to a bunch of seniors as a compensation for NOT skipping school.... ha. But we don't always appreciate the same things later in life that we did when we were younger... so I am glad you gave the movie a second chance!! :-)

 

They are a stupidly vivid and slow moving target, like a big black snake on red dirt...

 

These men were at the mercy of a military system that was outmoded and archaic.

 

And then the Indians, in their sky blue and bright red, backlit by the sun, moving quietly and efficiently across the mountaintops, each an individual but still part of the group

 

The indians had been around that area a lot longer and they had a better understanding for how to work WITH the landscape in their maneuvering and tactics. And by no means would I consider myself a "military historian" (again I say...by NO means!!! :-) ) But I think the US soldiers' warfare and military tactics were very "traditional" in a lot of respects for a long time in our nations history so I think you have a point there. At least the soldiers were not without a few tricks of their own... (as in making a big show about bedding down and waiting until after dark to move out, etc)

 

But having said all that, there may have been some practical reasons for the "big parade"... especially when it came to their slow speed in allowing time for "scouting ahead" and also in response time to various obstacles they might have come across. And traveling in a long "parade" like that may also have kept certain "squads" in specific groupings to allow for better agility and defense of those who were weaker (for instance, I liked how they had certain people called "to the rear" when danger was a factor.) It might have also had something to do w/ the terrain... perhaps those in front cut a path for those who were needing to travel slower (for whatever reason). I am sure someone w/ more military knowledge would be able to answer better.

 

As far as why were they there in the first place... I guess we could ask THAT question in about a gazillion different places as our nation grew and expanded over time. Not all indians were a dangerous, but the indians who WERE hostile were a huge threat to the people who had come west (and YES... lots of arguements could be made that the same was true of those people being a threat to the indians) but the fact is... that is what happened... and for better or worse... that is our history. So leaving THAT out of the equation, I am sure the military outposts that were placed here and there in the southwest were designed to help people who had decided to move and settle in the area and to also protect the area for those who were traveling through there as well. (whether to live or to just pass through).

 

You know I was thinking about how one theme that gets portrayed a lot in this movie is the passing of time and how it changes everything... including the respect you have and/or used to have for those who are older or more experienced. The indians and the soldiers were an interesting contrast there... It is interesting to see how the Indians have NO desire to listen to their still living "forefathers" who have lived and fought and also kept peace for many years (or should I say "moons" ha) . But I like how Brittles is able to work within the "old guy" mold he's been placed in by time in a way that the indian leaders can't. He still commands the respect of his younger men. And he is seen as a leader and not just an old guy. Yet I like how he is told that the younger men need their chance to succeed or fail just like he had his.

 

Still... (possible spoiler) he makes sure that they are set up to succeed and levels the playing field for them before he bows out... and I kinda like that he did it that way. Its a good way to help try to insure that the work you started is able to be carried out long after you are gone... PLUS... he KNEW the indian threat for what it was... and he knew those soldiers would NOT succeed in a long drawn out battle. And rather than have to "remember" then all for their bravery in battle (after all.. the inscription was "lest we forget") he made it so both he and they could look back on their time under his command and be able to say that he never once left a job unfinished. A much better way to leave his post.

 

And PS.... I have loved Ben Johnson in almost anything I can ever remember him in... but the FIRST role I ever recall him in was not even a western (though he DID play a cowboy of sorts) It was Mighty Joe Young... still my favorite performance.

[fxreyman]

Wendy,

 

Ever seen Mr. Johnson in his Oscar-winning role of Sam the Lion in The Last Picture Show?

 

Great, great performance.

 

Also he was wonderful as the old, forgotten Confederate soldier called "Mister" in Richard Brooks excellent story about a 600-mile horse endurance race in the early 1900's called Bite the Bullet.

[JackFavell]

First of all, Rey-

 

I have seen Last Picture Show, and in fact, I own it. I am embarrassed to say that I had no idea who Ben Johnson was when I last watched it. Obviously I have to go back now and watch it from a different perspective. I am on a Ben Johnson hunt.... I have been hankerin' to see The Wild Bunch recently as well, so I'll investigate that as well as Bite the Bullet.

 

I simply don't understand why he wasn't the most gigantic star.... it seems fitting that perhaps he just didn't want to go that road....

 

I mean, people work for years to get that ease that he had from day one. He had that way of looking downward, as if the camera weren't there at all. His quiet country voice - there was never a struggle for him to be heard. Quite the contrary, I find myself looking at and listening to him much more than anyone else on the screen, simply because his quiet but authoritative demeanor draws you in.

 

Well, I could wax poetic about Ol' Ben for hours, but I am sure you'll all be yawning

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=rohanaka wrote:}{quote}

> Hi Jackie... I cannot imagine a highschool showing THIS movie to a bunch of seniors as a compensation for NOT skipping school.... ha. But we don't always appreciate the same things later in life that we did when we were younger... so I am glad you gave the movie a second chance!! :-)

 

The sad thing is, I wanted to watch it.... I just couldn't in that atmosphere....

 

> The indians had been around that area a lot longer and they had a better understanding for how to work WITH the landscape in their maneuvering and tactics. And by no means would I consider myself a "military historian" (again I say...by NO means!!! :-) ) But I think the US soldiers' warfare and military tactics were very "traditional" in a lot of respects for a long time in our nations history so I think you have a point there. At least the soldiers were not without a few tricks of their own... (as in making a big show about bedding down and waiting until after dark to move out, etc)

 

I think you hit the nail on the head with that word "traditional". I felt there was a lot of tradition shown in the movie - these men were required to stick with tradition, for better, and for worse.

 

> But having said all that, there may have been some practical reasons for the "big parade"... especially when it came to their slow speed in allowing time for "scouting ahead" and also in response time to various obstacles they might have come across. And traveling in a long "parade" like that may also have kept certain "squads" in specific groupings to allow for better agility and defense of those who were weaker (for instance, I liked how they had certain people called "to the rear" when danger was a factor.) It might have also had something to do w/ the terrain... perhaps those in front cut a path for those who were needing to travel slower (for whatever reason). I am sure someone w/ more military knowledge would be able to answer better.

 

Yes, that all makes a lot of sense to me. I am confident that the film is extremely accurate in it''s portrayal of the regulations, the chain of command and the rules of military engagement. Ford's dwelling on it is what baffled me a bit. I was not sure how to feel about all the maneuvers. No one ever gave an order that was carried out immediately.... there was always a production number in getting anything done (except by Wayne and Johnson). From the minute the movie starts, with MacLaglen yelling down the line, his orders repeated by those on the left and right flanks (forgive me if this is the wrong word), I noticed an attention to these long lines and large groupings. Too large a force to be handled by one man.... perhaps that is the key here... maybe the idea that the new soldiers would have to work together to control this "new" military....

 

> As far as why were they there in the first place... I guess we could ask THAT question in about a gazillion different places as our nation grew and expanded over time. Not all indians were a dangerous, but the indians who WERE hostile were a huge threat to the people who had come west (and YES... lots of arguements could be made that the same was true of those people being a threat to the indians) but the fact is... that is what happened... and for better or worse... that is our history. So leaving THAT out of the equation, I am sure the military outposts that were placed here and there in the southwest were designed to help people who had decided to move and settle in the area and to also protect the area for those who were traveling through there as well. (whether to live or to just pass through).

>

 

I really did not mean anything political at ALL in my first post.... I just meant that the blue and yellow soldiers seemed out of place in the extreme.... uncomfortable in their straitlaced uniforms, with their odd rules of conduct in this beautiful, free, yet harsh landscape. That is what I am trying to capture--- the visuals are all so FREE as if blown by the wind.... but the soldiers were all bottled up with their traditions and regulations. Not "this is the best way to do it" but "This is the way we have ALWAYS done it". That is why it was so satisfying for me at the end to see Wayne just work his way around the rules and regulations.

 

> You know I was thinking about how one theme that gets portrayed a lot in this movie is the passing of time and how it changes everything... including the respect you have and/or used to have for those who are older or more experienced. The indians and the soldiers were an interesting contrast there... It is interesting to see how the Indians have NO desire to listen to their still living "forefathers" who have lived and fought and also kept peace for many years (or should I say "moons" ha) . But I like how Brittles is able to work within the "old guy" mold he's been placed in by time in a way that the indian leaders can't. He still commands the respect of his younger men. And he is seen as a leader and not just an old guy. Yet I like how he is told that the younger men need their chance to succeed or fail just like he had his.

 

> Still... (possible spoiler) he makes sure that they are set up to succeed and levels the playing field for them before he bows out... and I kinda like that he did it that way. Its a good way to help try to insure that the work you started is able to be carried out long after you are gone... PLUS... he KNEW the indian threat for what it was... and he knew those soldiers would NOT succeed in a long drawn out battle. And rather than have to "remember" then all for their bravery in battle (after all.. the inscription was "lest we forget") he made it so both he and they could look back on their time under his command and be able to say that he never once left a job unfinished. A much better way to leave his post.

 

Now that is just brilliant! This was where the movie drew me back to the main story. Wayne simply IS the leader, whether he has a uniform, a hat, or a badge of some kind to prove it. As a civilian, he is STILL a leader. He can't help it. It is in him the way that it is in Quincannon to drink.

 

I loved the way Nathan had to step back and let his boys go. They needed to fail or succeed on their own terms. It was very fatherly.

 

I think the movie could have dealt with Pennell and Cohill's rivalry in such a way as to completely bypass the Joanna Dru romance aspect. I would have been happy to see it all played out in a man's world.... but keeping Mildred Natwick's character, Old Iron Pants(what a hoot). The romance part of it, and the way Dru' relationship with Wayne played out seemed like a false step to me. Although I have to say Dru got the best line in the movie and did an excellent job reading it. I just got the idea she was too smart to be victimized by Cohill all the time. Perhaps it isn't Dru that bugs me so much, it is actually John Agar..... that may be it.

 

> And PS.... I have loved Ben Johnson in almost anything I can ever remember him in... but the FIRST role I ever recall him in was not even a western (though he DID play a cowboy of sorts) It was Mighty Joe Young... still my favorite performance.

 

Check. Note to self: rent Mighty Joe Young.

[MissGoddess]

I'm just loving reading this discussion on SWAYR---Lynn, where are you!?

 

I hope FrankGrimes will chime in, he finally saw this recently and I wonder

what he thinks.

 

I don't think I can possibly add anything myself, Wendy, you and Kathy

have really said a mouthful.

 

I've always seen the film as essentially a series of vignettes or snapshots

of military life in that part of the west, with the underlying story of an old

man passing the flame (or the old past giving way to the future, the eternal

"parade" that is markedly present in so many Ford films). I don't judge it

by the same criteria as I do any other westerns or films of any genre, except,

don't laugh, the "experimental" types. Nothing in the way of a concrete

narrative or plot exists. It's shambling, though there is a very general

progression of time (toward Nathan's retirement) but above all it's daily

rituals, daily repetitive activities of life on the fort. Sort of like those indie

films from the sixties that everyone thought so avante garde because they

just followed people around living their daily lives. Ford did it BEFORE they

did, but he didn't do it wihtout sacrificing artistry and taking advantage of

a much more magnificent backdrop and grander scope of history. Try

doing that and risk alienating your audience by concentrating not on ACTION

but on character and going for the texture of an old soldier's life winding down.

 

Amazing. I lump SWAYR with Wings of Eagles, The Long Grey Line, 7 Women

and some of his earlier films as rather maverick attempts at a new way of

depicting film narrative. Impressionistic as opposed to solid realism, yet

subtle, not jarring. In fact, it took me forever to stop looking at these films

the same way I do traditional narrative film but more in the way I look at

a film by, say, *Truffaut*.

 

And I'm still adjusting to this shift in consciousness, but it's allowing me

to see so much more artistry and depth than I thought possible from these

films.

[JackFavell]

Ahhhh. OK.

 

Goddess, when you said *Truffaut*, something in me clicked. I understand a little better now. Very interesting. Pappy always surprises. I could not wrap my mind around this movie. I have been coming at it with preconceived notions of "WESTERN" or "ELEGY" stamped on my mind. I also have those notions from high school still stuck in my head.

[movieman1957]

Realism is something that I wouldn't attach to everything in "SWAYR." At one end the colors in the movie are sometimes set to give a kind of ethereal feel to it. Think of Nathan foing out to talk to his wife at the grave site. Nothing anywhere could make any place that red. But it is a beautiful setting. The shot that lingers on Dru when she comes out to meet him is a long (duration) shot to show that she is waiting. Again, beautifully back lit. They are in a place that is different than anywhere else they live.

 

Tradition is a primary focus of Ford's Cavalry films. "Ft. Apache" is flooded with it. The scene where Bond gives Fonda a good dressing down because he has overstepped his authority in Bond's home is wonderful. No less so here. He's a stickler for the rules, at first. That is why Pennell can go picnicking by himself. But he is not beyond bending things. At the end he is sending Cohill off to do something that he will have to answer for at his court martial. If the Army doesn't have its law or its tradtion then it has no chance to move forward either. At least I think that may be part of what Ford says. Then again I don't direct films.

[JackFavell]

> {quote:title=movieman1957 wrote:}{quote}

>If the Army doesn't have its law or its tradition then it has no chance to move forward either. At least I think that may be part of what Ford says. Then again I don't direct films.

 

I think you are right, Chris. Certain laws and traditions do work over the long haul. And a lack of tradition and laws would have resulted in complete failure. What Ro said about contrasting the native American side comes to mind - their laws and traditions were changing as well. Obviously, we won most of our battles with the land and the native Americans. But there are some things, like the way we fight, that have changed over time. I think Ford picked a certain time - 1876 - as a delineated changing point in history. I feel like this movie is placed at a pivot point between old and new ways of doing things. ARGH. What I am trying to say isn't coming out right. This movie is taking place on the edge of time - a fine line between old and new ideas. And the soldiers (even the military itself) have to decide what is important to take with them into the future.

[MissGoddess]

Chris, right on! I agree, and Wendy I DO understand what you are saying. It's darned

complex subject, Ford is A PARADOX above all and his films are filled with apparent

contradictions and multiple layers.

 

That's why they are so richly layered and discussable. Or "cussable"

sometimes, as the case may be!

[MissGoddess]

Make that "ornery cussable", ha ha.

[JackFavell]

*LOL!*

[movieman1957]

I think you are right for the reason of the setting in time. Doesn't the narration at the beginning say something about that. "Custer is dead." Some other things go right to that point.

 

Your comment made sense to me. You're fine.

[rohanaka]

don't think I can possibly add anything myself, Wendy, you and Kathy

have really said a mouthful.

 

I've always seen the film as essentially a series of vignettes or snapshots

of military life in that part of the west, with the underlying story of an old

man passing the flame (or the old past giving way to the future, the eternal

"parade" that is markedly present in so many Ford films).

 

 

Well for someone who didn't have anything to add... you did a good job of saying things just right!! ha. It IS like looking through an old photo album in a lot of respects.

 

Sort of like those indie films from the sixties that everyone thought so avante garde because they just followed people around living their daily lives.Ford did it BEFORE they did, but he didn't do it wihtout sacrificing artistry and taking advantage of a much more magnificent backdrop and grander scope of history. Try doing that and risk alienating your audience by concentrating not on ACTION but on character and going for the texture of an old soldier's life winding down

 

Yet another excelllent point. And the more I learn about Ford, the more I am impressed by all his many ways of bringing out the best parts of the whole storytelling experince.... and the more I also appreciate how trendsetting he was at times and how innovative he was. He set a standard for those who came after him that left some VERY large shoes which are rarely filled nowdays as well as they were when he was wearing them.

 

(Ok.. that may have sounded goofy...ha. My sentence structure is NOT up to par these days...Ha. I only mean that HE is a standard that few filmmakers now days are able to live up to.... at least in my lowly, untrained, and uneducated opinion.) :-)

[MissGoddess]

Hi there, Lowly, Untrained and Uneducated! Meet Uppity, Unbridled and Under Paid.

 

They were indeed, seven league boots to fill.

 

Interestingly, if any of you have seen Will Rogers' movie with Ford, JUDGE PRIEST,

you will see that his character, like Nathan's, is a widow who lost his wife and

children apparently during the Civil War (due to illness if I'm not mistaken). Both

men are seen talking to their wives graveside and living with the photos taken

of them, deeply cherished.

 

I continue to be deeply touched by the incredible sensitivity Ford brings to his

movies featuring stories about elder characters. I don't think any other director

explored the age of loss, or the "third age" more continuously throughout their

career.

[rohanaka]

I continue to be deeply touched by the incredible sensitivity Ford brings to his

movies featuring stories about elder characters. I don't think any other director

explored the age of loss, or the "third age" more continuously throughout their

career.

 

For all his 'tough old guy" exterior... he must have had a REALLY huge heart.

 

And PS... after reading your comments on Judge Priest several months ago... it is one that I have on my WANNA SEE list for sure.

 

Meet Uppity, Unbridled and Under Paid

 

HA!! That sounds like the title to some sort of Marilyn Monroe movie...ha. (don't let FrankGrimes read that). ha.

[JackFavell]

Hi, LUU and UUU. I'm inarticulate, underappreciated and slightly unhinged.

 

Even in Straight Shooting from 1917, Ford gives his elder actor the most moving moment. He is able to cut across boundaries, especially from youth to age. Almost every movie I can think of has an extended family of sorts....including ALL ages.

 

All the Ford movies I have seen have been distinctly different. They may look similar, but each is an entity unto itself. And how you approach them matters. If you come to one with a closed mind, you will not like it.

 

Some are like love at first sight. My Darling Clementine, The Grapes of Wrath, HGWMV, and TMWSLV are like that for me. Some others take a little courtin' - spending time getting to know the way they move and feel, finding their heart and soul. The Searchers, They Were Expendable, and now She Wore a Yellow Ribbon are on this list. I haven't quite gotten to know SWAYR yet.

 

Outwardly, it's about a military maneuver. Inwardly, I don't quite know yet. There are some huge themes at work, though. Failure, cooperation, aging, rivalry, growing up, the need to make things right..... all these things are swirling around in this film. I am sure there are more, i just haven't found them yet.

[lzcutter]

Hey guys,

 

You've been doing some mighty fine ramblin', I must say. Very proud of my troops, very proud.

 

As for the tradition and ritual, those are at the heart of many Ford films, along with his other favorite, family. And Ford was ahead of his time in defining family as sometimes outside of your immediate relatives.

 

As for the military and *SWAYR*, it is set in the months after Custer's defeat at the Little Big Horn. Mac and Nathan go over the list of casualities and Nathan includes some of them in his "report" later that night to Mrs. Brittles. "Never could waltz much myself." he tells her.

 

As for their marching, the military academy was at West Point, back in the east and like all fine military academies, it taught its students how to fight the old fashioned way, the British/European way, with long lines of soldiers marching across the landscape.

 

The men who fought in the American Revolution learned that guerilla warfare from behind trees and fences had its place in the new country but more often than not, those who taught at the military academies did not approve of that way of fighting. It wasn't honorable.

 

During the Civil War, Stonewall Jackson and RE Lee once again showed their West Point brothers (many of those in the upper ranks of the two armies had been students together at West Point), just how effective guerilla warfare could be.

 

But, even Robert E Lee, himself, could not pull himself completely away from the old handbooks and military maneuvers he learned at West Point as he sent Pickett and his men charging across an open field at Gettysburg while those men were gunned down by the Yankees above them.

 

Out west, the old ways of fighting were still clung too. The Indians, especially the Apache, were expert at guerilla warfare and that is one reason that it took so long to bring Geronimo and his band in.

 

It wasn't until World War I and the carnage that was inflicted on so many soldiers and so many deaths, that the military academies started teaching other approaches to fighting.

[JackFavell]

Hey there, Lynn!

 

Maybe if I keep rambling, in another 3 years I can make sergeant......

[MissGoddess]

Thanks for those interesting facts about military maneuvering, MrsZ. Didn't FORT APACHE

even mention something about the different kinds of tactics?

[JakeHolman]

>During the Civil War, Stonewall Jackson and RE Lee once again showed their West Point brothers (many of those in the upper ranks of the two armies had been students together at West Point), just how effective guerilla warfare could be.

 

*"My men have sometimes failed to take a position, but to defend one, never!"*

 

General Stonewall Jackson

[fxreyman]

Just some thoughts on the American Civil War......

 

By the time Nathan Brittles is shown speaking with Major Allshard about their former fallen comrades at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, the US Calvary had received quite an education in tactics and leadership from none other than the Confederate Army during the early stages of the Civil War. 1876 was only fifteen years removed from the first battles of the Civil War. Brittles and Quincannon and Allshard were veterans of that conflict and were now using that experience in fighting the Indians in the Southwest.

 

The main reason why the Confederacy won many of the major battles of the Civil War during the first two years, was the fact that many of it's generals were some of the most brightest commanders to serve the U.S. Army before the war. The Confederacy did not employ as many guerilla tactics as has been suggested, in fact what was happening was the Southern Army was just that much better in the early battles than their northern counterparts.

 

What was happening with the Northern armies was really just a foul up of extraordinary proportions. Many of their commanders did not know where the other commander and his army were located, thus many of the early battles were very confusing and many Union troops lost their lives to the inadequacy of their commanders.

 

An area where the Southern Armies were better suited was in the area of horse calvary. This is where J.E.B. Stuart used all that he learned at West Point to their tactical advantage. Stuart would send these units in fast where the opposition was the strongest and hold their attention long enough so that Lee could then attack using his infantry from the other side where the enemy was the weakest.

 

The South also had another advantage: Most of the early battles were fought in Virginia. Most of the Confederates fighting in Virginia were from Virginia. Hence, they knew the landscape better. There were alos fortifications built up, especially at Fredericksburg where wave after wave of federal troops tried unsuccessfully to attack a stone wall. They were all repulsed at a heavy loss of life. It is true, however that both sides used the frontal assault with not very good results.

 

The Confederates tried this with Pickett's charge at Gettysburg and also at the Battle of Franklin in 1864 with huge losses.

 

At the outset of the war.....

 

The Union Army only had 16,000 troops at it's disposal, forcing President Lincoln to call on the remaining 23 states to field a 75,000 man army. Out of this came an enthusiastic amount of raw recruits, all of whom had to be trained under strong Army discipline. Also called up were the many state militias already serving in different capacities. All had to eventually learn to work together as companies, brigades and armies.

 

Meanwhile the South continued to raise their armies. And unbelievable as it might seem today, most of their commanders were some of the brightest students of military history and tactics at West Point. About a third of the West Point officers chose to resign their Army commissions and join the South. Chief among them was Robert E. Lee. Lee was offered the chance to command the northern Armies by Lincoln himself. But Lee just could not come to terms of fighting against his home state of Virginia. President Jefferson Davis of the Confederacy (who also was a cadet at West Point) wasted no time in offering the top Confederate job to Lee who accepted. Along with Lee there was James Longstreet, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, P.G.T. Beauregard, Joseph Johston and John Hood and J.E.B. Stuart.

 

It is true that many commanders for the South once served alongside their Northern counterparts. Many of them graduated in the same year at West Point. Many served together during the Mexican War during the 1840's. So they knew their northern counterparts very well, and in many of those early battles they often beat their former associates quite handily. Especially at First and Second battles at Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Fredericksburg, the Seven Days campaign.

 

But the regular troops were a different matter entirely. Where as the Generals and commanders were mostly very well trained at West Point, the same could not be said of the regular troops. It would take many months, well into 1862 before troops would be better organized and trained to support longer engagements and more importantly hold the lines against advancing armies.

 

The Confederate Army also had growing pains. But their main trouble was from a lack of political leadership. Before the North could enforce their blockade of Southern ports, the Confederacy had in their power the chance to negotiate with both England and France with the purchase of thousands of ammunition and weapons and the like. But because the political leadership believed that once a blockade was formed, they could get the combined powers of both England and France to run the blockades and deliver to the Confederates all of the ammunition and weapons it wanted for the very high price it could get for it's chief agricultural product: cotton. But that plan backfired and soon enough the North had it's blockade in place. But eventually the south found a way to produce the many weapons and ammunition it needed to win this war.

 

But by this time most of the South had been conquered and the North was producing more men, better trained and better equipped to fight what was becoming a hopeless situation for the South.

 

After the fall of Richmond in the spring of 1865, Lee had really no other choice left to him but to surrender his ragtag troops to U.S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.

 

Edited by Fxreyman

( I may have too many grammer errors here, so please forgive me)

[JakeHolman]

*"You have lost your left. I have lost my right arm."*

 

The Venerable General Robert E Lee

[JackFavell]

Rey, thanks for the extensive background information on Civil War military history. All fascinating and apropos of the movie we are discussing. I had always thought (from my rudimentary knowledge of such things) that the south's main problem was in getting supplies, since most of the factories were up north.

 

I was thinking last night as I started watching the movie again, how much went into the making of this movie. First of all, Ford was re-staging complete cavalry maneuvers, which were very intricate and specific. But then I realized that he not only was setting up that long parade, but also cameras and everything behind the scenes as well. Not to mention simply getting all that personnel and equipment and stagecoaches and horses and dogs into Monument Valley in the first place! The man was a genius in the logistics of moviemaking. To do all this and make your budget seems impossible to me. To do it with military precision is an art in itself.

[movieman1957]

If you ever want to get some sense of the logistics of making a movie on location look for "Westward The Women." In the past when they have shown it it has, at times, been accompanied by a short that describes the making of that film. Granted, we are not dealing with a military film but the logistics of transportation, housing, feeding the crew and training the women to handle the horses is very interesting.

 

There may also be something similar on a bonus feature on "The Searchers" but don't hold me to that.