MovieChat Forums > North and South (1985) Discussion > Totally unrealistic and cheesy...

Totally unrealistic and cheesy...

posted 14 years ago by rusher-5
12 replies | jump to latest

Maybe if one loves melodrama and drivel like that it is a good title to recommend. Now, I've only seen some two episodes of this and at least they were half decent... I've read the synopsis for the rest and I wonder how much cheese can you put in a miniseries. It's not like I expected to watch REALISTIC Civil War miniseries but it's utter bullcrap!!!

Now, I'm copying this here from wikipedia:

"Orry and Charles, now officers in the Confederate Army, leave the Main family plantation for the war in Virginia. Orry, despite having been against secession, becomes a general and military aide to Confederate President Jefferson Davis in the Confederate capital of Richmond. Meanwhile, George and Billy are in Washington, D.C., where they are officers in the U.S. Army. Billy joins the U.S. Sharpshooters regiment, while George becomes a military aide to U.S. President Abraham Lincoln. "

Yeah, like totally realistic... Both the main heroes become aides to their presidents.... like on the previous day they were Lieutenants and when the war started they were suddenly promoted to Generals, right???

Meanwhile, Bent - who has become increasingly psychotic and unstable - begins planning to assassinate Confederate President Jefferson Davis and become the dictator of the South.

Ridiculous :D:D Maybe he killed Lincoln later too and became the Emperor of the Union???

Ashton begins working as a prostitute in Santa Fe; her goal is to earn enough money to buy Mont Royal.

Yeah, by woking as a prostitute...

Then there were other things about Confederate prisons, Ku Klux Klan, James Brown etc. I'm lazy to mention. Maybe you can look past all the nonsense in the book just because it has great love story(-ies) but in what way this is better than your typical Mexican telenovela?? Probably costs more but the realism is non-existent at all...

I hate when writers can't make a story, a believable and realistic story without the introduction of all the presidents and generals and famous battles, infamous prisons and organizations in the story... I hate when writers do that. I am a writer too and that just drives me insane. In "Gone with the Wind" Butler isn't an aide to Davis and Ashley doesn't get captured and drink tea with Abe Lincoln and General Grant discussing the war and slavery problem..... and he later isn't given his uniform and a kanoe to return to his bimbette.... And even without big names (except the fact that "Sherman is coming to Atlanta") it's a far better story that this one. Just decide what you want to do- if you want to make a miniseries about famous generals, do "Gods and Generals" or "Gettysburg" with real life characters, if you want to do love story do "Cold Mountain" or "Gone with the Wind" instead of making history your bitch....

[–] Antosha_Snape 14 years ago

I can't believe you're trying to troll the North and South board.

"You policemen are always in such a hurry. As if dead men didn't have all eternity."

[–] Malgga 14 years ago

Hi rusher-5,

I totally agree with your opinion about the shortcuts in this series. For example the promotion of Orry and George to the ranks of generals is totally unbelievable.
It would probably be the fastest military promotion in the history of mankind :-DDD.
There is also an element of the plot, which bothers me to no end. Why would Madeleine's father, knowing that she is an "octoroon", make her marry a husband like Justin, who is a cruel racist, capable of everything?
However, I noticed that many writers of period productions (especially these which are made for tv) use shortcuts. Why is this so? Are they too lazy? Or just thinking that the viewers are idiots?
To sum up this series isn't perhaps utter rubbish (I have seen worse), but it surely doesn't deserve the high rating it got on www.imdb.com.
Alone the costumes of the actresses and the hairstyles of almost everybody look like from an eighties prom ball!

[–] CakesAndAle 14 years ago

There is also an element of the plot, which bothers me to no end. Why would Madeleine's father, knowing that she is an "octoroon", make her marry a husband like Justin, who is a cruel racist, capable of everything?

This bothered me too, and it's not just that her mother was a quadroon she was also a prostitute, therefore making it probable that the truth would come out eventually. (Shades of East of Eden.) Madeleine's father met her through a madam so he must have realized that other people might recognize her or at least her name. One would think he would have found her a safer, more understanding husband and married her off at a much younger age (to have her settled as quickly as possible). Such implausible scenarios are the main ingredient that set apart melodramas and soaps from non-soapish programs.

[–] Malgga 14 years ago

"One would think he would have found her a safer, more understanding husband and married her off at a much younger age (to have her settled as quickly as possible)."

Exactly! Madeleine's father should have set up enquiries before choosing a candidate for a husband. But no, all he could come up with was Justin... How lame!
I also think that Lesley-Ann Down was too old to play Madeleine. And why was she always running around with low cleavages, no matter what time of day? Was she playing the part of a barmaid, or what?
But as you said, "North and South" was basically a soap.

[–] allpoliticiansareevil 11 years ago

Justin had fooled Madaline's father prior to their marriage, it wasn't till after the wedding that the father learned how terrible a person Justin was. Also he wanted her to marry Justin to be out of New Orleans where it was more likely that people knew the family secret

[–] holligolightly 14 years ago

You are completely wrong here. First it is a made for tv meladrama with mostly soap actors from the 80's though many legends are in it... so set your ideals appropriately to start with.
Second in the shift of time it explanes rather accurately what happens... we don't need to watch all 4 years at the academy, a month here and there will suffice for most of us.

As for not finishing &it's cheese factor~ This is true for the idea that it is similar to a soap (hint;earlier statement) however it also it's incredibly graphic in the military and slavery exploitation! It's fabulous! You must finish and fast forward thru the gush if you must:)

I urge you to sit thru knowing it will get very violent and savory without the soapy sidelines!

[–] bryanac625 14 years ago

I'm a historian and the Civil War Era is my favorite subject to research. N&S was enjoyable to watch, but it is by no means an accurate portrayal of the period. But I am well aware that it was a TV show meant to entertain first and provide history as an afterthought. But there were several things I did not like:

-several characters in the book were either left out of the TV show or their stories were radically changed. for example, the book George Hazard never wanted to have much to do with the military. On TV, he "always wanted to be a soldier."

-I thought it was very cheesy the way they "equalized" the men of both sides in the war. Orry and George were both general officers with the same jobs at the same times. And I thought it was a joke the way they kept running into each other throughout the war.

-and one thing I've noticed in a lot of recent Civil War films: except for evil or unlikeable characters like Justin LaMotte or James Huntoon, no southerner is ever fighting to preserve slavery/white supremacy. I thought N&S 1 did better at presenting the truth of this than part 2.

[–] Malgga 14 years ago

Thank you VERY much for your words on "North and South"! I always like to read opinions of professionals on a certain subject.
What other historical errors or errors concerning the customs of that era have you noticed?

[–] bryanac625 14 years ago

What other historical errors or errors concerning the customs of that era have you noticed?

Wow, that's a really big question. I think you should look into a study of the Victorian ers and the behaviors of men women and children of the time, as well as the cultures of north and south of the period. So many "historic" movies dress like the Civil War but act like the 1980s, as was the case with N&S. The same was true of Titanic. Jack and Rose acted like 1990s teenagers more than young people of 1912. In fact, if a young woman of wealthy society of 1912 acted the way the character in the film did, she would have been judged mentally ill. To me, that's a real history lesson there.

[–] Malgga 14 years ago

I know the European standards of behavior of the upper classes in the 19th century, but I thought that perhaps in the antebellum South things would be a little different :-). Anyway, I ordered "Within the Plantation Household" by Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, so I hope that soon I will know more about that region in those days.
I don't like the movie "Titanic" either. Jack and Rose acted really like teenagers from 1997. The whole storyline was so simplistic and unbelievable that it hurt. I suspect that the target of this production were 15 year old girls.
However, it is true that far too often scriptwriters attach modern attitudes and sensibilities to characters "living" in previous eras. Are they afraid that if the characters behaved historically, and not politically, correct, the viewers would lose their sympathy for these characters?

[–] bryanac625 14 years ago

I don't mind these movies but I've begrudgingly learned you just can't expect much, if any accuracy from a period film. In the case of Titanic, I would like to believe they could have made a very good, dramatic and captivating film featuring four real stories about real people on the ship. Some of the real stories of the Titanic are very interesting.

Are they afraid that if the characters behaved historically, and not politically, correct, the viewers would lose their sympathy for these characters?

Maybe it is fear. People we're supposed to like in these films (like George and Orry) are frequestly shown with progressive attitudes towards women, blacks, etc. Although Orry did use the "n" word in the heat of an argument. Bad, evil characters (Justin LaMotte) are the wife and slave beaters who treat women and blacks like second-class children. Were people really that good in those days, or really that bad? I don't know but there are certainly people like this today.

I certainly love to see things portrayed accurately but sometimes I'm not sure it would be best to do so. Show a movie where even good men beat their wives... will viewers go out and do the same thing? Years ago I saw a TV movie about a hostage situation. Several people were held hostage, including a mom and her young daughter. so one of the terrorists builds a relationship with the mother and tells her he wants to have sex with her daughter. She tells her daughter "do it" and she does. Now, that is an interesting situation. It's probably happened before somewhere. But I don't believe anyone will show that today. I can only imagine the backlash that came from people, outraged at a movie showing a woman telling her daughter to let a man rape her. I wonder how many people boycotted products from commercials shown during that movie. I'm not saying films or situations like that should be shown today but I've noticed certain thingas just don't get shown anymore.

[–] nammage 11 years ago

You can go to Wikipedia and look for yourself but here's a few as an example:

Brigadier General Henry Allen Watkins was a private in April, 1861 and the next month he was promoted to Lt. Colonel. He became a General 2 years later but was recommended less than a year later.

Brigadier General Henry Hopkins Sibley, left the Union as a 1st Lieutenant, less than a year later in 1861 promoted to General.

Brigadier General Jubal Early was a graduate of West Point, made General in 1861 when the war began. He did serve in the Mexican-American war as a Major but before the war and after it he wasn't in the military, he was a lawyer.

Those are a few examples. You'll find the same thing on the Union side. After the war, if remaining in the military, they'd revert back to the rank they were before.

There were 20-30 year old Generals on both sides, Brigadier General Galusha Pennypacker was 20 years old on the Union side, and the youngest Confederate General was Stephen D. Lee, I believe, at 24 years old. In the Revolutionary War, they were as young as 19 years old.

You may not believe it but it happened. Orry Main and George Hazard went to West Point, graduated and fought in a war. Both were successful businessmen, and had experience. Making them Generals after only being 2nd Lieutenants is believable based on actual history. Becoming aides to their respective presidents, eh, maybe, maybe not.

-Nam

I'm on the road less traveled...