I can't recall having seen a program with so many one-dimensional characters in my entire life. Justin Lamotte, Elkanah Bent, and Ashton Main, for example, are all utterly, irrevocably, and irredeemably evil. I half expected to see a scene with Justin Lamotte shooting skeet using puppies in place of clay pidgeons. Even the most evil person in the world pets a kitten every now and then for Pete's sake. Totally unbelieveable.
Nor can I remember seeing two more ignorant families portrayed in all the history of film. In the first 90 seconds of the series I figured out that Ashton Main was evil incarnate and was never to be trusted. A characteristic that managed to elude the rest of the Main family in an entire lifetime spent with her. A similar lack of trust should have existed with the Hazard family with regard to Virgilia, but nooooooooo. Let's believe her when she promises to behave herself if she's allowed to go down south with the family to visit the Mains knowing of her utter disdain for all that the Mains represent.
TV Guide agreed with you in view of Elkanah Bent. They voted him "the Snidely Whiplash Award for most Stereotypical Villain." Still, one can argue that in real life there are people like Bent and Justin. People with no redeemable aspects whatsover; people who want to see the world burn.
I don't think 25 years counts as a lifetime. If you saw any child do what Ashton did as a child you would instantly label him or her as evil incarnate? Kids are capable of lots of nasty stuff. My school life proved that one. The hope is that such brats eventually mature and grow up. The Main family probably thought that, considering how black sheep Charles turned out. Besides, it's not like they knew about Ashton's affairs (save for Charles, who decided to keep quiet out of respect for Orry). They only knew her as spoiled and selfish, personality traits hardly a justification for suspecting the worst.
The Hazards were no different. The fact that they welcomed an Irish Catholic into their family says enough of their good nature, and their willingness to see the best in people. And swearing on a Bible was considered enough of a trust back then.
Furthermore, in both character's cases, I believe the social mores also had a thing to do with it. The novel suggests that both Ashton and Virgilia hated being females and their submissive role. Despite some respects (a belle controlling the plantation), women taking an action or speaking out in a 19th century male-oriented society was considered unthinkable. Thus, the expectation of any deplorable action like marrying a black man or murder were equally ignored. Neither the Hazards or the Mains were in the mindset to realize what their womenfolk were capable of.
I'm sorry if this series was a waste of time for you. It was never to me.
>Still, one can argue that in real life there are people like Bent and Justin. >People with no redeemable aspects whatsover; people who want to see the world >burn.
How can that be argued? Even Adolph Hitler had some redeeming qualities. Had he stuck to economics and stayed away from world conquest, he could have won the Nobel Prize. He was also a very good artist, loved opera, and had an amazing eye for architecture. It's fitting that the characters in this program were compared to Snidely Whiplash as they were nothing more than cartoon characters. But why choose Elkanah Bent as the worst? Any one of the three--Elkanah, Justin, or Ashton--could have won the award. It must have been a very difficult decision.
>I don't think 25 years counts as a lifetime.
If someone doesn't get a hint about another's character after living with them for 25 years(!), then they deserve everything that person can dish out.
>If you saw any child do what Ashton did as a child you would instantly label >him or her as evil incarnate?
Evil incarnate? Probably not. Would I ever trust that person? Hell no. But time and time again the Mains and the Hazards put their trust in these witches only to have that trust trampled upon. They're idiots.
>And swearing on a Bible was considered enough of a trust back then.
And after she swore on the Bible she promptly betrayed that trust yet again. Idiots.
>Despite some respects (a belle controlling the plantation), women taking an >action or speaking out in a 19th century male-oriented society was considered >unthinkable. Thus, the expectation of any deplorable action like marrying a >black man or murder were equally ignored.
The movie was FILLED with women "taking an action or speaking out." Virgilia as a female John Brown, Ashton of course, Constance in setting up a safe house for runaways, Maum Sally who twice stood against Justin Lamotte at the cost of her own life, Maude Hazard running the ironworks, and Isabel Hazard who pulled the strings of her spineless husband. So that argument doesn't hold water.
>Neither the Hazards or the Mains were in the mindset to realize what their >womenfolk were capable of.
If they can't see what's been in front of their faces all of their lives (even if it was only a mere quarter century of evidence) then they're idiots.
>I'm sorry if this series was a waste of time for you. It was never to me.
Glad you enjoyed it. I, however, need more dimensions to my characterizations to make the story even remotely believeable.
Evil incarnate? Probably not. Would I ever trust that person? Hell no. But time and time again the Mains and the Hazards put their trust in these witches only to have that trust trampled upon. They're idiots.
So if a child (maybe yours) did such a bad thing like breaking an egg, you would never trust him or her ever again?
And again, Ashton kept her true nature a secret; the worst she seemed to the family was a spoiled brat. Billy and Charles kept their mouths shut about her sluttery. When her true nature was revealed, out she went. In the case of Virgilia, her worst actions before the Mont Royal visit were her words. Not a basis for ostracization. Yes, they put her trust to her (once), and her actions with Grady caused them to never trust her again. They did allow her hospitality because she needed money or shelter. She was family and they were good people (most of them), although in both cases 1859 and 1861 it was waried upon. Tell one the truth, in the original Book sequel LOVE AND WAR, Virgilia did once again come back to the house impoverished- after the crap she pulled in 1861. Constance did not know whether to let her in or turn her back (and looking at a knife gave her some nasty suggestions). She did bring her in, but only in secret between herself and Brett. And she did manage to be in good behavior. Later, she does redeem herself to the Mains.
I did not say such feminine independence did not exist. I meant that it was not socially acceptable. If you noticed, much of your examples were either hidden, surrendered or punished. Maude gave the power away to her sons, only stepping in when it was really important. Constance's role in the Underground Railroad was secret (and George's presence probably made it appear to some that it was all his idea). Both Isabel and Ashton hid their independent nature under 'lady gentility,' keeping their independent decisions to themselves or their husbands/lovers (when they did complain publicly or with outside members, it was mainly 'How rude!'), Virgilia did her actions publicly and was ostracized. Maum Sally and Madeline were punished for their actions.
reply share
>So if a child (maybe yours) did such a bad thing like breaking an egg, you >would never trust him or her ever again?
We're not talking about the blind and unconditional love a parent gives to a child. We're talking about the relationship between siblings which is a different dynamic. I had an older brother and he would do and say things to me that he would flat out deny to my parents that he ever did or said. My parents wouldn't know who to believe, but I did. And Ashton did more than simply break an egg. She broke it, wiped it on Brett's dress, and said, "If I can't have it, nobody will!" That pretty much sums up her character.
>And again, Ashton kept her true nature a secret.
She DIDN'T keep her true nature a secret. Her true nature was revealed in the very first scene! And there's no reason to believe that she wasn't just as unashamedly demonstrative about about her true character a thousand other times during her life with the Mains. Even so, it would be impossible for her to fool the Mains for twenty odd years--until she attempted murder--without them getting a clue unless they're complete idiots. I suppose you think Kim Jong Il began developing nuclear weapons to defend against an American invasion like he said. Wrong. He was a leopard who couldn't change his spots. He protrayed himself as a noble leader, but fooled no one into believing he was anything other than a psycho. You're taking two instances shown in the movie--the egg and her promiscuity--as if they are the only two such occurences ever in her life. Even so, she was found out by a family member each time. And, again, there's no reason to believe this didn't happen a hundred other times over the years which weren't portrayed in the film.
>In the case of Virgilia, her worst actions before the Mont Royal visit were >her words. Not a basis for ostracization.
I wasn't suggesting that she be ostracized because of her words. Only that she not be trusted because of them. And I would have been right in doing so as it turns out.
But if you note in the egg scene, it's not brought up to any of the family members. If it did, chances are Ashton would have denied it like your older brother. The girl was pretty much an actress.
She DIDN'T keep her true nature a secret. Her true nature was revealed in the very first scene! And there's no reason to believe that she wasn't just as unashamedly demonstrative about about her true character a thousand other times during her life with the Mains.
WE have that evidence, but what makes you think Orry, Brett, and Clarissa did? You write as if every negative act- sleeping with Forbes and the West Point boys, planning Billy's death with Forbes- was acknowledged by her family. WE saw it, WE know her true nature, but whenever Ashton is with Orry, Brett, or the Hazards, she comes off as merely a spoiled selfish brat. To THEM, there was no proof of her true evil until Brett's wedding. Breaking an egg as a child is the act of a brat, not an evil person (if it was a dog or cat, it's a different story), whining about not going to any major balls is the actions of a spoiled person, not an evil psycho. The real big deal was her promiscuity, but that would make her a slut, still not an evil person (and as I wrote before, Billy and Charles said nothing. If they did, Ashton would have received her comeuppance from Orry much earlier). In the novel, her actions include intimidating George (in 1846) and Billy (in c. 1851; the novel had the Grady incident earlier) with her adult-for-her-age flirtations, and- privately at her house- butt-whacking two slaves for saying the word 'Lincoln.' Thus, whatever nasty crap she pulled in the twenty years as witnessed by her family, it probably wasn't as horrible or unforgivable as planning Billy's murder. And when that was revealed, Bye Bye Ashton.
As for Virgilia, on my first viewing of the series (on five Saturdays- eps. 1 and 2 were together- on the Family Channel, pre-ABC) I truthfully didn't expect her to do what she did at Mont Royal. You might as well say that I was like George, believing the best in her (after all, she was against slavery). Guess that makes me a moron too.
I'm afraid I can't give a reply anytime soon. Starting tomorrow, I am fasting from the Internet for Lent (unless if it's part of my job). Only on the following six Sundays (a free-Lent day) will I be on this message board again.
reply share
The main villainous characters at first were definitely Bent and Justin. Ashton was essentially a brat, but she crossed the line to evil when she plotted to kill Billy. Prior to this, Ashton could be viewed as spoiled, egocentric, self-absorbed, and most of all manipulative. None of these were admirable qualities, but there is a difference between being unlikable and evil.
Justin was Simon Legree on steroids. Justin was evil in every sense of the word. If he was a dog, he would have been put down, so he wouldn't be a danger to others. Bent had to be the most delusional character. He kept talking about how instructors at West Point recognized his "military genius." Bent actually saw himself comparable to Napoleon. Ironically, the genius managed to get expelled. Quite a few geniuses in business and science never graduated from college, but it was because an opportunity arose that they felt was more beneficial than having a degree. Conversely, Bent got kicked out of West Point and blamed Orry and George for engineering his demise. Orry and George did play a role, but it was not out of malice, but out of necessity. Bent's sadistic nature would have gotten somebody killed eventually. Not unlike Justin, he had to be taken down. As time progressed, Bent became more evil.
The interesting thing about these miniseries was the fact that some of the characters were altered if not left out. For example, much of Orry's dialogue belonged to his older brother Cooper who was not seen in the first two installments of the televised trilogy. Cooper suffered a reverse of the "Chuck Cunningham Syndrome." Chuck appeared in early episodes of "Happy Days" and then was never seen or mentioned again. Meanwhile, Cooper made his presence felt in the third installment of the miniseries after being a non-entity in the first two parts. Any unfamiliar with the book would have had no idea that Cooper was rather liberal and believed in mechanization as the best course of action for Southern progress along with political power. If I'm not mistaken, Bent was from Ohio in the book, but from Georgia in the miniseries.
Often Hollywood structures the source material to suit the tastes of the viewing audience. At the time, prime-time soap operas were the rage. So any miniseries had to have an element of the soap opera. Most soap operas have villains who are completely over-the-top.
You couldn't have said any of that any better then you did. I give you a high 5 for it. was 27 when North and South was aired and the times then are certainly different now and do reflect how they did mini serious compared to now days. That can make a big difference and people that weren't born or just to young to have even wanted to watch it back then would not begin to understand that.
Why did [Madeline] help Ashton? If Ashton would have died during the abortion Orry would have never forgiven her! where is the loyalty to Orry? Why when Justin pressured her to tell the truth she didn't tell her about Ashton....why would Madeline put Ashton's wellbeing over hers?
I have no idea what Orry would have felt, if something had happened to Ashton. But the reason why Madeline didn't tell Justin about it is really obvious. He would totally turn her helping another woman have an abortion against her. I also suppose he didn't like that she hung out with the Mains anyway?
why would Madeline put Ashton's wellbeing over hers?
Because that's the kind of person Madeline is, she's self-sacrificing and puts others above herself. In the book she even refuses to make love to Orry before she left Justin, so as not to betray her marriage, even as awful as Justin was to her.
reply share
How can that be argued? Even Adolph Hitler had some redeeming qualities. Had he stuck to economics and stayed away from world conquest, he could have won the Nobel Prize. He was also a very good artist, loved opera, and had an amazing eye for architecture. It's fitting that the characters in this program were compared to Snidely Whiplash as they were nothing more than cartoon characters. But why choose Elkanah Bent as the worst? Any one of the three--Elkanah, Justin, or Ashton--could have won the award. It must have been a very difficult decision.
I guess that within story-telling, people often become more black and white than what they are in real life. But the real world has also been (and also still is) full of lunatics, wife-beaters and manipulative bitches. Sure, they could have given Elkanah, Justin and Ashton some redeemable traits. But I assume they hardly had any in the novels either, and many people like a good villain. "North & South" also have many lily-white heroes and heroines, as polar opposites to the jet-black villains. So I guess it goes both ways.
In the book, I felt a little bit sorry for Elkanah because he was overweight and not very attractive and his family background was pretty messed up. He was still a terrible person though. I'm not sure why Justin was so awful. In the book Ashton has a desire to please her father because he had wanted another son instead of a daughter, but I don't see that as much of a reason for why she was like she was. In the book I did think Billy handled their breakup not so well. He decided she was too ambitious and experienced for him and then turned to Brett. Even though they had had some kind of fight, Ashton still loved Billy and would have given up her ambition for him, or at least that's what she thought, but Billy never really gave her a chance to say that as he never officially broke up with her, just stopped bothering with her and went after Brett.
I did think her fondness for Will Fenway was nice.
I actually don't remember Elkanah that well (I mostly remember the episodes from after Orry and George had left West Point). But yeah, if you have to deal with both insecurity and a bad home life, some people will flip and become a bully. Justin probably had been raised to think that as a white man, he was God's greatest creation, so women and black people were just to obey him. As for Ashton, I thought she actually had two brothers? Wouldn't their father be satisfied with that? But someone else suggested that she maybe was an ambitious woman in a male-dominated society, who focused her energy on the wrong things. And like I said in my last post, the world has always been full of people, who sure aren't very nice to others, for one reason or another. Some of these characters maybe even had a psychopathic disorder or something?
Elkanah has an obsession in the book and the movie with being another Napolean, wanting to be someone important, it seems. In the book version I can see that making sense from a psychological point of view if he felt insecure, he is very sadistic though.
Good points about Justin. A lot of the characters are products of their time and environment/society. Things we know are wrong today, they may not have.
She actually does have two brothers, Cooper isn't in the first and second movies but he is in the third. I'm not sure why the father wanted another son when he had two already. Maybe afraid they would die or not have children and not carry on the family name? So maybe back in those days the more sons the better. I think you're right about her being a woman in a male-dominated society, if you read some of her last scenes in the third book you can get an impression of that.
I would say a lot of the villainous characters are sociopaths, they fit the profile.
Elkanah has an obsession in the book and the movie with being another Napolean, wanting to be someone important, it seems. In the book version I can see that making sense from a psychological point of view if he felt insecure, he is very sadistic though.
He maybe thought he had to be cruel to gain respect? He also seems to have had some disorder.
Good points about Justin. A lot of the characters are products of their time and environment/society. Things we know are wrong today, they may not have.
We still have domestic violence and racism today, so we can just imagine what it would have been like a century and a half ago.
She actually does have two brothers, Cooper isn't in the first and second movies but he is in the third. I'm not sure why the father wanted another son when he had two already. Maybe afraid they would die or not have children and not carry on the family name? So maybe back in those days the more sons the better.
Yeah, but when you already have two sons, a daughter hardly would have been a disaster either. But then again, maybe it still was so to her father. I actually don't remember him, now that I think about it. I have to re-watch this series one of these days. But I remember Orry, Ashton, Brett and their mother, but not their father. Did he maybe die early on in the series?
I think you're right about her being a woman in a male-dominated society, if you read some of her last scenes in the third book you can get an impression of that.
If someone like Ashton had been born a hundred years later, she probably still wouldn't have been a nice person. But she would have had plenty more options, and she might have been able to accomplish more. I don't know though...
Well in the third book I think there's some suggestion there was mental illness in Bent's family.
About Tillet, he dies in the first book, sort of in the middle I guess? I guess he really doesn't appear in the miniseries that much. The most I remember about him in the book was the situation with Priam getting beaten and his disagreements with Cooper. The miniseries never touches on Ashton's relationship with or desire to please Tillet that I can remember.
I have to say I can understand your saying this but the books are compelling, to say the least, and John Jakes is probably one of the more talented authors of his time.
What might not translate to the screen is the literary need for characters such as Bent, Ashton and Virgilia. All good stories need both a protagonist and an antagonist.
Jakes researched American History a great deal and it shows so well in the books. History is rife with people like these three, to be sure.
I've been watching the first North and South mini-series and I'm afraid, after having watched it when it first came out on television and remembering being enthralled with it, the acting in it hasn't held up well over time.
"Posters entering a discussion for the purpose of attacking the others are quickly ignored."
I appreciated John Jakes' detail to history after seeing the first three books of the "Kent Family Chronicles" televised when I was a kid. As a result, I became something of a history buff. Recently, "The Bastard," "The Rebels," and "The Seekers" have been released on DVD. I read an article that the "Chronicles" was supposed to continue in the early 1980's, but the producer died and the project died with him. I always wondered why they stopped continuing these series. The miniseries is a virtually dead genre, unfortunately. If not for cable, there wouldn't be any at all.
The series essentially consisted of five episodes showing over and over the evil machinations of Justin Lamotte, Aston Main, and Elkanah Bent only to have them get their comeuppance in the final episode. Got it. They're evil. There wasn't much more of a story aside from that.
Virgilia was never shown to be evil. She was simply a fanatic about her -noble- beliefs about slavery needing to be abolished. I think that the Hazards tolerated her more because they agreed with her opinion on slavery, but simply differed in her extremism and her essentially blaming the Mains (who were portrayed as moderates who treated their slaves humanely -especially compared to Justin. As Constance told George, Orry -and the other Mains, save Ashton- were a product of the belief system and heritage they were raised in. It would take time -generations- to change those beliefs) for slavery. I do agree that Virgilia seemed to go more and more insane as time went by. She seemed to totally lose it by the time of John Brown's raid at Harpers Ferry.
Ashton's plotting was never known to the rest of the Main family until the plot to murder Billy came to light. I'm sure Orry and Brett were aware that Ashton 'got around'. Orry seemed to be aware of it enough that he tried to warn Huntoon what he was getting into. However, they never suspected she would go so far as to try and murder someone, her sister's husband, no less.
In the books, both Virgilia and Ashton have slightly more depth to them. Virgilia survives and mellows after the war. She even makes up her previous actions to the Mains by helping them to keep Mont Royal. Ashton, does admit to sometimes feeling shame about how she acts with men, when she visits Tillet's gravesite. After the war, when she's reduced to running a brothel, Ashton finds herself wishing she was a child playing with Brett back at Mont Royal again.
Comparing Ashton to Charles simply doesn't wash. Charles was never shown to be cruel or manipulative. He was simply wild and enjoyed raising hell. In the book, after tutoring Charles for the duel, it's Orry who gets the idea of Charles making a career in the Army. He sees that Charles has a great deal of intelligence and potential, but only needs some direction in his life. He acts as role model, and Charles broaches the subject of perhaps going to West Point.
In the book, Bent is described as having been a superior student at West Point but a very unpopular one. Orry and George learn that he was subjected to far more hazing than other plebes were, and that -in the opinion of his peers and superiors- he brought it on himself with his pronouncements of his superior abilities and his connections. As well, Bent in the miniseries is the combination of both the the book's Bent and a Georgian that Ashton has an affair with and plots to overthrow the Davis government with.
Justin is just as evil in the book as in the miniseries. The Mains seem to have little regard for him as they know how bad he is. It adds to Madeline's tragedy that her father turned her away for Orry -who would've been good to her- to marry Justin, who her father clearly didn't know the true nature of.
I am in love with this miniseries. I was 12 when it first aired so I now understand more of what is going on as I watch it now. I don't think it's cheesy at all. I do admit some of the acting is terrible especially Swayze
If you spent the full ten hours watching something you felt was so bad from the first 90 seconds then you deserve to be that miserable. How could it possibly have taken you that long to figure out that you hated it?
Don't be so overly-critical of NORTH AND SOUTH. The producers' sole purpose was to entertain, not be flawlessly accurate. They still got their history right and the plot was believable, even if some of the characters are as you say "one dimensional."
This series is an entertaining soap opera saga in a historical setting with nice costumes. And the villains Justin LaMotte and Elkanah Bent make me chuckle with their overblown dastardly ways.
~"Chris, am I weird?" ~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."
Even the most evil person in the world pets a kitten every now and then for Pete's sake.
If you believe that with all your heart then I invite you to read Dr. Robert Hare's book entitled, "Without Conscience: The Disturbing World of the Psychopaths Among Us". It's a fascinating read and one that's hard to put down once you've started. He invented an invaluable tool known as the "Hare Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R)" which allows professionals in the mental health field to properly diagnose psychopathy in individuals for clinical, legal or research purposes.
Take a moment to read up on him or even better check your local library for a copy of his book or even buy it. Your worldview will change once you know what's out there and why these people don't have the capacity to pet an animal or help their neighbors. And the statistics about how many of them walk among us in our cities is mind boggling and scary to say the least.
You may have lost ten hours of your life that you'll never get back but reading this book will give you something back much more valuable in the long run and may even save your life.
reply share