I think one of the important things to keep in mind is a strain I have seen
run through several of these very interesting e-mails, which is for us to
keep in mind that what is important about works of art, of any kind, that
purport to depict history is whether they get the story of the past right,
rather than the window dressing.  I am probably in the minority in the
historical community, but I believe it to be less important if a movie about
the contact event of 1607, if it claims to be a true historical
representation (and it remains to be seen whether the producers will do so
when the movie is released) includes early Stuart buttons or boats than if
they accurately reflect what happened when English and American cultures
collided, insofar as those things can be gleaned from historical sources
(which is so tragically problematic for the native American side of the
story).

What it may come down to is the manner in which the producers manage the
historical aspects of the film versus its artistic elements.  They could go
for chutzpah, a la Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, and claim that The New
World is a true story from which everyone who sees it can learn.  Or they
could avoid that problematic precipice and acknowledge that it is a movie
based on actual events and people but liberties with both have been taken
for the sake of telling a story, which has real--but very different--value
as "historical entertainment," a matter so nicely outlined in Anita
Henderson's e-mail.  Either way, I hardly think it will matter to most
viewers, but it will make a difference to anyone who likes to see their
e-mail boxes filled with listserve messages about the connection between
history and art--and to those who strive to set students straight about what
really happened.

And, by the way, I do not think there is anything wrong with discussing
certain aspects of the film before anyone has the chance to actually see it.
 What I have seen on this list-serv has mostly been a thoughtful
consideration (exemplified by Harold Forsythe's contribution) of a broad
question from a wide number of perspectives, the consideration of which was
instigated by the film's existing website; a question that becomes more
salient as the mediums through which people get their history (and
entertainment) explode in number and kind.  While I have read that several
respondents are looking forward to seeing the movie, I have not yet seen
anyone give Colin Farrell and The New World two thumbs down (although, after
Alexander, the former does not get the benefit of my doubt).



On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 23:17:22 EDT
  "Anita L. Henderson" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> In a message dated 8/2/05 1:04:44 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:
>
>
>> So let's not bash the artists, lets synchronize with them.=A0 There are
>> things they do better than we do and there are things we do better than
>> they.=A0 Let's try to emulate them and also invite them into our circle,
>> offering advice and support.
>>=20
>> Harold S. Forsythe
>> Golieb Fellow (2004-2005)
>> New York University, School of Law
>>=20
>
> Dear Harold:
>
> I agree with you regarding the need to work with Hollywood.   Next,=20
> historical accuracy in Hollywood   is an oxymoron!!    Hollywood has
>tested=20=
> my=20
> historical patience in countless ways!   The Smithsonian, realizing that
>mos=
> t people=20
> get their history thru film set up an office to help improve historical=20
> accuracy in film.   Their attitude was one of "lets try and influence the
>fi=
> lmmakers=20
> in a positive way" rather than lambasting them.   The first feature film
>the=
> y=20
> worked on was "The Patriot" with Mel Gibson.   They made small and
>large=20
> historical contributions with regards to accuracy in the film.   Of
>course,=20=
> they=20
> were not totally successful, witness the red uniforms of Tavington
>(Tarleton=
> 's=20
> Legion--who wore green) as I guess they thought most viewers couldn't
>figure=
> =20
> out who they were.   Also my Rev war friends were sputtering mad about
>some=20=
> of=20
> the inaccuracies especially one of my friend who does a British officer=20
> impression!   I thought it was fairly good as historical entertainment
>excep=
> t for the=20
> uniform and Mel Gibson's character having black farm hands who were free.
> =20
> That was a bit of a  stretch!!!!   But my area of expertise is CW
>living=20
> history not Rev war so I defer to my Rev war friends for judging the
>movie.=20=
>   It=20
> would have been worse if Rex Ellis and company hadn't been there to steer
>th=
> em=20
> toward accuracy.  For example, the maroon Gullah village was the
>Smithsonian=
> 's=20
> idea which Roland Emmerich the director really loved.   In this case
>history=
> =20
> and filmmaking merged to creat a unique historical image/topic not
>covered=20
> before in popular media.   I agree about the statement concerning John
>Ford.=
>   As=20
> a kid, that was my first introduction to western cavalry history and
>Monumen=
> t=20
> Valley!   Someone once pointed out to Ford that the cavalry really didn't
>we=
> ar=20
> yellow neckerchiefs, he replied "well they do in my movies"!     To him
>the=20
> visual spectacle and   story took precedence over history.   I loved his
>fil=
> ms=20
> as a kid and wasn't knowledgeable enough to spot the inaccuracies such
>as=20
> Indian war uniforms and 1904 McClellan saddlesi n the Horse Soldiers a CW
>mo=
> vie.  =20
> It still didn't take away from the story and his excellent stable of=20
> character actors.   He got right how soldiers talk and act among each
>other=20=
> on  =20
> campaign and that is what carries the movie and makes it a success.    It
>is=
> hard=20
> though when you know infinite detail to watch a historical movie and
>and=20
> grimace silently in agony when you see something egregiously wrong.   For
>ex=
> ample=20
> in Cold Mountain, the Natalie Portman character who is a poor widow in the
>N=
> C=20
> hills has a potbellied stove in the corner.     NOTTT!!!!   Folks like
>here=20
> probably didn't get stoves until the latter part of the century or early
>20t=
> h=20
> century!!   Since one of my impressions is that of a free black woman or
>hou=
> se=20
> slave who is a cook, I have studied the use of stoves and about a half
>milli=
> on=20
> were in use by the CW, but mostly among wealthy. upper middle class folks
>an=
> d=20
> institutions not poor Appalachian whites!!   I have done extra work in=20
> documentary and indies on the CW where there was an emphasis on accuracy.
> =20=
> In=20
> Hollywood the emphasis is on the story and the art of telling it so I
>don't=20=
> expect=20
> accuracy with them and am pleasantly surprised when they do put some
>emphasi=
> s on=20
> accuracy.    One good thing I have noticed is that the historical accuracy
>o=
> f=20
> films has improved over the last 40 years that I have been a movie buff
>so=20
> there is hope!
>
> Anita L. Henderson
> Atlantic Guard Soldiers Aid Society
> Researching Maria Lewis, black female trooper of the 8th NY Cavalry
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

R.S. Taylor Stoermer
Corcoran Department of History
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia 22904

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html