Cold Mountain Controversy
The mighty Greg Tate weighs in on Cold Mountain. The biggest bombshell here may be Tate's admission that he "treasures" both The English Patient and Talented Mr. Ripley!
Blacked Out
Speaking of slavery, Cold Mountain doesn't. Its pale version of history is a whitewash.
We African Americans lead strange and conflicted lives at the movies. For this reason, the Internet was recently abuzz with calls by actor and self-described semiotician Erik Todd Dellums to boycott Cold Mountain, a Civil War film noticeably lacking in melanin content. Charles Frazier's novel hardly avoids African Americans as concertedly as the Anthony Minghella film starring Jude Law and Nicole Kidman. The versions share some key erasures, though—the opening scene, a re-creation of the legendary Battle of the Crater in Petersburg, Virginia, is perhaps the most egregious. On that July 1864 morning, Union soldiers exploded the ground underneath a drowsy Confederate regiment. Novel and film fail to mention how specially trained African American troops had been poised to attack the Crater (now a historical tour site) and the Southerners it swallowed. Historians claim that the African Americans were withdrawn due to fears of Northern political fallout if they were used as cannon fodder. Whatever, dude. Methinks the sight of armed African Americans freely picking off shocked and awed white Southern troops was too avant-garde for 1864. In any event, the upshot of the switch was that untrained white Unionists didn't flank the Crater as the brothers were trained to, but rushed in and got shot up like fish in a barrel. At which point all the bloods got thrown in as cannon fodder anyhow. The Confederates, already peeved at being sneak-attacked, lost it when they saw armed and uniformed men of African descent. One need only imagine the language they used. A military adviser on the film recalls Minghella shooting a scene in which a crazed Confederate soldier slaughters a wounded African American. The adviser believes the scene got cut because it was "too over-the-top" and "too painful." Minghella has similarly explained away the film's eschewing the immorality of slavery. Since that would entail having Nicole Kidman's snow-pure love object reflect on being a slave owner, one can see why. Once again liberal guilt goes belly-up in the guts sweepstakes...
Also of note: M. Matos on Kylie Minogue
Posted by jsmooth995 at February 6, 2004 5:59 PM
I wish someone would ask Minghella why he changed the book's egg-sharing runaway slaves to egg-refusers...Amongst other things.
Tate brings up some excellent, excellent shit here. (That "swarthy Minghella" paragraph: oh my!)
Unbelievable how tiny the baby-steps of advancement are.
