The MoFo Movie Club Discussion: Little Big Man

Tools    





Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Good question.

I think that the film and its book should be compared and contrasted to discuss which one does what better. However, if all you do is cite the novel or even a history book to say what happens in it, then you aren't really comparing it to the film. In truth, no one has to watch Little Big Man to discuss the novel or what history books say at all. It's completely irrelevant to the film experience. Besides that, the intent of the book and the film could be completely different.

I know that the novel (published in 1964) is full of absurdist humor and was allegedly written as a reaction to all the various people who seemed to pop out of the wordwork to claim to be or know outlaws such as Billy the Kid and Butch Cassidy in the 1950s. Jack Crabb was supposed to be one such person, or at least that was Berger's jumping off point. In the movie, the brutality which runs throughout, especially that perpetuated by the whites, is used as a metaphor for the Vietnam War, not just the genocide of the Native Americans. I have heard this come out of director Arthur Penn's mouth on TCM so if you don't believe it or don't see it in the film, then good for you, but I can certainly see it.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page



Oh, I don't know Ruf, I thought the film made it pretty clear how reckless Custer was. And maybe no one will ever really know for sure but I'd bet my left leg that Custer was well aware of what he was up against. He may have been many things but unprepared and under informed were hardly possible for a General. Especially a "hands on" kind of guy like himself.

Any thoughts on Crabb's statement before his last raid, on Custer needing one more major victory so he could become President?
That was just a movie element: why would it take just "one more victory" to cinch the nomination? That's an absurd assumption on Jack's part, because in truth the Indian wars were basically a dirty little police action. In January 1876, an order had been issued for all of the Sioux and Cheyenne to go to reservations. Some did, many didn't and the reason Custer was at the Little Bighorn was because the Army was trying to hunt down the holdouts and put them on the reservation.

I’ve heard speculation before that Custer had political ambitions. If he did, however, there wasn’t a snowball’s chance in hell he would even had been nominated as a presidential candidate. In 1876, Grant—the most popular US general from the Civil War—was nearing the finish of two scandal-ridden terms as president. I don’t think the Republicans or the country was in any mood for another West Point grad and professional soldier in that office, especially a person as rash as Custer.

But that alone doesn’t explain it. You see, Custer wasn’t really famous until after he died! We think of him now as the legendary Custer, but had he survived and even been victorious at the Little Bighorn, he would have been just a footnote in the history of western expansion, as little known today as Cook or Terry or Gibbon, the three generals who outranked Custer and commanded the three army columns closing on the Little Bighorn in a pincher movement to catch the Indians.

Custer was a brevetted general during the Civil War, which means he was temporarily given the higher rank but not the pay. Once the war was over, he reverted to his actual rank and was a lieutenant colonel when he took command of the 7th Cavalry. Gen. Sheridan, by then commander of the Army, thought highly of Custer and probably saved his career on a couple of occasions after the war. Grant, however, was down on him and took away the command of one column that was to have been Custer’s after Custer testified in hearings about the corrupt Indian Service. That was not by a long shot the same as being a friend of the Indian, however.

Part of what brought Custer down in that battle was that he had very little regard for the military ability of Indian warriors. In fact, he was pretty contemptuous of Indians in general. Certainly he was a glory hound (he envied the medals his brother had won), which is why he outpaced the column to which he was assigned and was the first to reach the Little Bighorn river where he practically stumbled on the Indian camp. He didn’t reconnoiter the camp himself to see what the land was like for the upcoming battle, and he didn’t believe his Crow scouts when they told him how huge that camp was.

He was so sure of himself that he split his command into three units prior to the attack, taking only 208 of his total force of 484 with him. Estimates by soldiers and Indians at the Little Big Horn that day have estimated the number of Indian warriors in a range of 1,800-5,000. Even Custer wouldn’t have charged a camp of that size—if he had but known.


History books are written by those that have conquered nations so its perfectly normal to expect our history of what was done to the Native American to be slanted in our favor.
I disagree. The only way the victors would write the histories is if all of the other side was dead. In which case, you'd never have accounts like "Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee." You're confusing history with the prevalent opinions of that moment in time. Lots of my southern brethern still claim the North wrote all the histories and distorted the Civil War, but one pro-Confederate newspaper editor in Richmond, Va., wrote and published two volumes of the southern history of the Civil War while the war was still being fought. After the war, he had his histories published in one book and marketed by a publishing firm in New York City. (I have a modern reprint in my book collection). Most of the prominent Confederate generals published their memoirs after the war, and Lee could have made a fortune on his but refused to cash in on his command under which so many men had died.

There were white Americans both in the East and the West who were angered by the Wounded Knee massacre back when it occurred.

A true historian has no "side" in any event of which he writes. He gathers the facts and voices his conclusion based on those facts.



Meanwhile, what the hell about the movie? I'd like to have a discussion about the MOVIE! I just don't like having one-way discussions.


Something you wanted to say about the movie, Mark? I for one would love to hear it.

I was just guessing at the Indian's name earlier. Knew I heard of Burns Red (or something similar) in one film; thought it was in Little Big Man, but I guess it could have been in the Costner flick, although he never seemed to get that much into the reality of life on the great American midland in the 19th century.

I rewatched Little Big Man on the TV movie channel a few days back. I have a copy but haven't dug it out in years. Still enjoyed the film--great performances by so many people, especially Hoffman. Liked it just as much as the first time I saw it. No less, but no more either. It's a very good movie. I think that's largely because it does follow the book.



In truth, no one has to watch Little Big Man to discuss the novel or what history books say at all. It's completely irrelevant to the film experience.
You're right, of course. One could discuss the book or history without reference to the film. But I wouldn't say that the book and history are irrelevant to the film experience. Don't know how it is with you, but for me, films do not exist in a vacuum. When I go see a film, I truck along all I've seen in other movies, things I read in novels and histories, opinons, prejudices, everything that makes up life. Can't help it. I just can't shut down all other knowledge and feelings and concentrate solely on a film. If it's not relevant to my larger life, my real life, why watch it.



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
All I'm saying is that if you spend all your time "talking about a FILM" by discussing a book and a history book (and history, even the ancient variety, changes almost every year), while barely discussing the movie, what's the point? Although you constantly remind us how little films matter to YOU, this IS a friggin' Movie Forum. Movies matter more to some of us and that's WHY we're here!

God, I just edited out a paragraph about what people value in life. You do realize that there are several young members on here who are current and future filmmakers. Obviously I'm a horrible father figure. My daughter attends the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts. No, I know. "If she likes it... "

Sometimes....



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Oh yeah, Little Big Man is one of the greatest films ever made. It's one of those films which has everything. However, it was made during what I consider a Golden Age of American Cinema, so maybe it will seem strange or offbeat to some. (Just as the "White Creatures" seem strange to Old Lodgeskins.) Why don't you take a shot and watch it for yourself and find out? At least you can discuss it here in a safe environment. HA!



All I'm saying is that if you spend all your time "talking about a FILM" by discussing a book and a history book (and history, even the ancient variety, changes almost every year), while barely discussing the movie, what's the point?
Actually, my recounting the real Custer's history was in response to a direct question by Powdered Water to me, "Any thoughts on Crabb's statement before his last raid, on Custer needing one more major victory so he could become President?"

Seems to me that relates to the discussion of the film. What do you think?

You do realize that there are several young members on here who are current and future filmmakers.
There's an unknown number of anonymous people moving in and out of this forum, all writing under assumed names, people I've never seen and will never see. Don't know if they're male or female (I've mistaken the sex of both in my responses), young or old (although it's a safe bet most are much younger than me), student or graduate, married or single, parent or not, rich or poor--hell, I don't know where most of them live much less if they will, are, or have studied film. And if even one fits into that category (and I'll take your word there are more than one), what difference does that make? I mean, are you saying if I can't say something nice about a film, I shouldn't say anything at all so as not to discourage sensitive young film students? That I'm lowering the IQ pool of a group that otherwise would be discussing film on a much higher level? That I'm being disrespectful of film because I see it as another media for entertainment and occasional fact, and a movie has never altered my life for the worse or the better?

I mean, what the hell do you want from me, Mark? Seems like everything I say offends you to varying degrees. Am I supposed to absorb your opinions and interpretations of film and keep mine to myself?

Maybe you should rename this Movie Forums for Serious Students of Film and ban riffraff like me.

Meanwhile, one more area of disagreement--history doesn't change, especially year to year. We may learn more about a historical event or person if new facts and sources are discovered. Someone may offer a new theory or interpretation of the known facts that is embraced or rejected by others. But the historical event itself doesn't changed, being locked forever in time. Just my opinion. Feel free to reject it--it won't make me mad if you do.



Oh yeah, Little Big Man is . . . one of those films which has everything.
Obviously it literally doesn't contain "everything." So what's your interpretation of "everything" and does the same "everything" apply to other moves or is it uniquely tailored case by case?

(This comment may not even have been directed to me. Wish you'd include original quotes or something to let me know if I'm supposed to respond or not.)



Sheesh, that's pretty pedantic, ruf. It isn't obvious that "everything" in a movie context simply means that it has all the major elements we expect from a great movie? IE: drama, action, comedy, etc. "I laughed, I cried," etc.

Anyway, I hate to sound like I'm trying to triangulate here, but I think it's equally as obvious that, yes, the history surrounding a quasi-historic movie matters, but that the primary focus should obviously be the movie itself. If a movie is presented as some sort of tongue-in-cheek, Forrest Gump style of revisionist history, then we should usually meet it on those terms, or not at all.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
^ *Ahem* Inglourious Basterds. Try finding some exterior reading material on THAT, ruf.

You do realize that there are several young members on here who are current and future filmmakers. Obviously I'm a horrible father figure. My daughter attends the University of Southern California School of Cinematic Arts. No, I know. "If she likes it... "
Wait, wut? Daughter? Mark, you must be one of those mythical, postmodern hipsterdads that listen to Avalanches and Arcade Fire. I prefer the strict, Oedipal model myself. I mean, it's basically unhealthy not to hate your dad these days.

---

This is a good discussion on film as art and deconstructionism. To quote Derrida, "il n'y a pas de hors-texte": there isn't anything outside the text at all. I think the same applies to film.

As for Little Big Man, I've got it on my queue.
__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."



Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Forgive me for this off-topic bit, but I'm saying this one thing and then I'm limiting myself to simply discussing the film.

I think that MoFo means more to me. I hang out in all its nooks and crannies. I bascially know all the sexes and ages of every member since I've been here. I'm also familiar with a large portion of the membership's marital or dating status/sexual preferences/what they look like/personal problems they're going through/etc. I personally wish them Happy Birthday on their birthdays, and I'd wish you one too, ruf, but you haven't shared that. MoFo is my home away from home. I believe, ruffy, that you're missing out on some of what MoFo has to offer by not visiting more of the site.

My wife, daughter and friends all have their hobbies, and this is mine. I'll admit that it may be more than a hobby to me, but I'm not embarrassed by that or feel like I'm wasting my life. I have watched movies on here which members made and posted here. I note, ruffy, that there are many parts of this site which you never post in. Except for the videogames threads, I usually post in all of them. MoFo and movies just mean more to me than they do to you.

None of this means that I feel offended by your comments. I just don't understand the point of many of them. I also am beginning to believe that you are one of the "most literal" people I've ever come across. It's not meant as a slam. It just means that it's harder for me to discuss a subject when it's being looked at from two alien perspectives, and I don't mean disagreeing perspectives. I mean that your thought processes and mine don't seem to line up that much, so we discuss "different things" when we talk about the "same thing". We use words differently, and I certainly use feelings when discussing films. I don't know any other way to do it, and I know that you don't either.



planet news's Avatar
Registered User
This moved me, mark. Really. You're a good human.



I apologize in advance for another film discussion interruption... but I wanted to briefly address a couple of earlier comments... I do have the movie in front of my pc and will try to watch it sometime today... and will try make a comment or two later... about the film.



Four, one of the Indians in camp was Crazy Horse, a Cheyenne with a reputation as a fearless, relentless fighter--in fact, he thought his medicine made him bulletproof, and for a long time he was right. However at this point, he was the idol of many of the younger warriors who wanted to prove they were as brave as he.
Tasunka Witko was Oglala Sioux... not Cheyenne... and a brilliant military strategist. Sioux warriors traditionally strive to be one of three things - a fierce fighter, an excellent hunter, or a good scout... Crazy Horse had achieved all three by the time he was in his teens... which was very rare. He also wasn't really stupid enough to believe he was bullet proof... especially considering the fact he'd been shot more than once. His medicine man did tell him a bullet would not kill him... and that he would die by being stabbed in the back... which is exactly how he died. Crazy Horse was a very reserved man who did everything in his power to protect his people... but in the end, it still wasn't enough.



As for "murdering women and children" you'll notice Jack was awfully young when he went on his first raid and killed that Pawnee, shooting an arrow into his back. In the Indian wars, a 12-year-old could drop you in your tracks, and if you were unlucky enough to be captured alive, the women in the tribe would make your last hours a hell of pain and torture. The Sioux and Crow and Pawnee had done that to each other for years, and they continued to fight that way against the "whites." Virtually every tribe involved in the Indian wars would steal white children and women to make them slaves or sell them to someone else, or else torture them to death. It was common in a raid on a lone family farm or ranch for the warriors to repeatedly rape any captured female of virtually any age before killing them. And in the Custer battle, it was the women who stripped and mutilated the soldiers' dead bodies, cutting off their privates, heads, hands, feet, eyes, whatever they would think of. So I don't see either side as being more cruel than the other.
A coin has two sides....

Warning Graphic Content

Massacre at Blue Water, September 3, 1855 -

"The dead lay thick, the children hacked and gashed through with swords, many shot and blown to pieces, women cut up too, or with their bodies torn . All the dead women had their "dresses lifted up over their heads and the soldiers had cut out their genitals". Soldiers had also cut the fetuses out of their pregnant mothers, leaving them on the ground to die side by side. These violent practices became the distinguishing mark of Captain Harney. Captain Harney and his soldiers continued to practice this brutal mutilation on the men, women and children, often parading the private parts of the dead Indians at the fort or in the barrooms. Many whites became outraged at hearing this, and papers began calling Captain Harney "Squaw Killer". But within weeks, in order to minimize Captain Harney's actions and maintain support from the public, the same papers began running false stories of Indians burning people alive and mutilating white women and children in the same manner. Captain Harney was not the only commander that planned and initiated the genocide of the Indians, however. Many others were also responsible for this type of behavior, General Custer and Captain Reno among them. The young Crazy Horse was also exposed to the soldiers taking the prisoners of these raids away, raping the young women at will. His "own people were led down the trail with the heavy chains on their hands and feet, and never brought back" - The Letters of Mari Sandoz


A true historian has no "side" in any event of which he writes. He gathers the facts and voices his conclusion based on those facts.
That may be so, but if the majority of those facts have been falsified (as in the case of the bogus newspaper articles mentioned above), it's kind of hard to get to the truth of the matter...
__________________
You never know what is enough, until you know what is more than enough.
~William Blake ~

AiSv Nv wa do hi ya do...
(Walk in Peace)




Tasunka Witko was Oglala Sioux... not Cheyenne...
I've seen references to him as both Sioux and Cheyenne--don't mean he belonged to both tribes simultaneously, but that some sources list him as Sioux and some as Cheyenne. Obviously I must have gone with the wrong source. My appologies to you and the Sioux. Regardless, as you say, he had a hell of a strong medicine and would paint himself and his horse with symbols of hail as part of that medicine (maybe lightening, too; it's been a long time since I've read a history on the Indian wars and it's always dangerous to comment from the top of one's head).

A coin has two sides....
I agree: Like I said in my post, neither side had a monopoly on cruelty and mutilation.

That may be so, but if the majority of those facts have been falsified (as in the case of the bogus newspaper articles mentioned above), it's kind of hard to get to the truth of the matter...
But obviously not impossible as you proved with what you searched out on that 1855 incident. Yeah, it would have helped if the plains Indians could read and write their own language as then there would be a bigger selection of written primary accounts for historians to research. However, there were "whites" even among the conquistadors who did not approve the butchery they witnessed and did write about it and have been read and used by modern historians. As I recall there were a couple of "whites" who had close contact with Sioux and Crow in the early 20th century and actually wrote down the accounts of the Custer fight as seen by the Indians. Most of what we know of the Indian side of those wars comes from accounts like these and oral traditions of tribes and family. There also were "whites" in the 19th century who respected and befriended Indians. James Stewart portrayed one real person in Broken Arrow. Audie Murphy portrayed another real friend of the Indians in Walk the Proud Land. (Hope that's enough of a movie reference so we don't get trounced too hard for going off subject! )



Sheesh, that's pretty pedantic, ruf. It isn't obvious that "everything" in a movie context simply means that it has all the major elements we expect from a great movie? IE: drama, action, comedy, etc. "I laughed, I cried," etc.

Anyway, I hate to sound like I'm trying to triangulate here, but I think it's equally as obvious that, yes, the history surrounding a quasi-historic movie matters, but that the primary focus should obviously be the movie itself. If a movie is presented as some sort of tongue-in-cheek, Forrest Gump style of revisionist history, then we should usually meet it on those terms, or not at all.
Like I said, I knew that was gonna come across to some as smart-ass, but I meant it as a serious question. I've often heard in this forum "it has everything," but like the old maid's robe, that covers all the particulars without revealing anything. So I'd really like to know what that means--is it just the emotions ("I laughed, I cried") like you said, or does a certain director, a certain actor come into play. In the case of Little Big Man, he's an Indian, an orphan, a boy toy, a con man, a gunfighter, a drunk, a muleskinner--does touching on all those Western (and other) themes constitute the "everything" of that particular film?

Well, I can see how that could be a bottomless hole to plumb, so I'll withdraw my question. But I want to assure you, I was being honest in my inquiry.

By the way, I don't have any problems with Little Big Man or Forrest Gump. I like both pictures, but I probably favor Little Big Man of the two simply because it has a much better cast. There's no better actor than Dustin Hoffman.



I note, ruffy, that there are many parts of this site which you never post in. Except for the videogames threads, I usually post in all of them. MoFo and movies just mean more to me than they do to you.
I've never counted, but I think I've posted in at least one division of all of the 4(?) major forums--the few that I feel I have something to contribute, anyway.

Movies likely do mean more to you. I mean, I like movies, but not all movies, and there are some actors and directors I avoid like the plague because I know from past experience it will not be a happy viewing. I've never studied film, I'm not big on symbolism and can't recite from memory an endless list of actors, actresses, directors, films, etc. And I'm not kidding when I say I've never seen a film that related much to my own life, much less inspired me to change my life--that whole concept is as foreign to me as snowboarding on the surface of the sun, and I was really surprised at first to read posts on such things in this forum. Oh, sure, when I was a kid I wanted to be a cowboy and have a horse like Trigger, but it never went beyond that. That doesn't mean I begrudge others who feel the pull of Hollywood. I'm all for gay marriages and other freedoms so I would never put someone down over a film (as long as it's not a recruitment film for the KKK or something as silly.)

None of this means that I feel offended by your comments. I just don't understand the point of many of them.
I'm glad to hear you're not offended by my comments because you're among the top 3 of the 6 or so members of this forum whose views on movies I most like to hear. But many times I've had to go sit in a tub of ice to soothe my tailfeathers after being flamed in some of your postings. Of course, you're not the only one who has lit me up at times, and I'm sure I've done the same, although I generally try not to be rude and offensive.

If you don't understand the point of my comments, then I must not be communicating well, and I'd be glad to take another crack at it if you ask me to explain myself.


I also am beginning to believe that you are one of the "most literal" people I've ever come across. It's not meant as a slam. It just means that it's harder for me to discuss a subject when it's being looked at from two alien perspectives, and I don't mean disagreeing perspectives. I mean that your thought processes and mine don't seem to line up that much, so we discuss "different things" when we talk about the "same thing". We use words differently, and I certainly use feelings when discussing films. I don't know any other way to do it, and I know that you don't either.
"Most literal?" Hmmm, I've never thought of that. You could be right. Consider: I've been a news reporter more than 30 years--I talk with people, gather facts, and put it together in an news article. Give me a bunch of facts, tell me how long a story you want and when you want it in hand, and I can deliver time after time. My whole world is reality, facts, and deadlines. Like there's no crying in baseball, there's no make-believe in in the news section of newspapers and no second-guessing. If I hit the news room with 7 minutes to knock out a report before I miss the first edition, there's no time to wonder, "is it better to open the story with this lead or that?" You grab whatcha got and run with it, knowing that hundreds of thousands of people may read that article and catch your slightest mistake.

You want news, you read the front page for the kind of stuff I write; you want analysis, you gotta go to the editorials, letters to the editor, and the various opinion columists. So, literal??? Yeah, I can see that. Doesn't mean I'm intolerant or don't value others' opinions.

Shoulda seen me in the good old days when we still wrote on manual typewriters. Be working on a story with the deadline approaching and the editor would come over and rip off what I've written so far, edit it and send on back to be set in print, and I'd still be typing out the next graph. Talk about working under pressure! But you gotta love the high of it.

And yeah, I can see the part on alien viewpoints--I've felt that, too. Lots of times I don't understand what's driving you, either. But folks have been telling me lately there are many ways to interpret a film, and I guess my interpretation is unique since it seems I'm always out of step with the majority. It doesn't bother me to be the only one with a certain point of view. But it's nice when someone at least listens to my viewpoint and discusses it rather than accuse me of crapping on their favorite film. I don't understand someone getting mad over an honest difference of opinion about a movie! Who has the biggest schlong, OK! But a movie???



will.15's Avatar
Semper Fooey
I've been in a place for several days where there is no internet access (not jail) and I come back to reading all this stuff that wasn't here before and very little of it has to do with Little Big Man! I am finding out a lot of information about General Custer and Crazy Horse I didn't know before. I did see a couple of westerns on TV yesterday (the place I was at did have TV), one of them being White Buffalo which had Wild Bill Hickcock meeting Crazy Horse. Not a bad movie. That Crazy Horse sure was crazy jumping on the mean animal and stabbing him. Oh, did I get off the subject, too?



I've been in a place for several days where there is no internet access (not jail) and I come back to reading all this stuff that wasn't here before and very little of it has to do with Little Big Man! I am finding out a lot of information about General Custer and Crazy Horse I didn't know before. I did see a couple of westerns on TV yesterday (the place I was at did have TV), one of them being White Buffalo which had Wild Bill Hickcock meeting Crazy Horse. Not a bad movie. That Crazy Horse sure was crazy jumping on the mean animal and stabbing him. Oh, did I get off the subject, too?
OK, let's talk Little Big Man--I liked it; how about you? Didn't care for that "White Buffalo" eyewash, however. Had Charles Bronson as Wild Bill, didn't it, and Will Simpson (is that the right name?) as Crazy Horse? It wasn't even in the same league with Little Big Man!

the place I was at did have TV
So do most jails.



OK, let's get into something about the film--what scene(s) do you think were the most realistic, based on your concepts of the West and the Indian wars? Which was the less realistic?

For me, one of the most realistic was the sheriff auctioning off Jack's store and merchandise after his partner took the money and drove him into bankruptcy. Lot of people who went West really did fail in business, in homesteading, and any other endeavor you care to describe. There were many documented cases of women turning to prostitution just so their families--often including their husbands--wouldn't starve.

Also the scene of the soldiers shooting the horses in the raid on the Washita (sp?) camp. One of Custer's subordinate officers is surprised when Custer orders the troops to kill the horses, but in reality, that was a common practice by units in many different areas. Horse herds were military targets for crippling transportation for the Indians

Also, the raids on the villages were realistic. See, all tribes learned early on they could not compete in a stand-up fight against a trained and disciplined "white" army. They would raid travelers along a trail or a remote farm or ranch where they had the numerical advantage, but when a cavalry patrol got after them, they'd split up and hide out to avoid being caught. So the only way soldiers could count on getting enough Indians together that they could attack was by raiding their camps, which means women and children are in the middle of the attack. But before they raided a village, they first had to find it, which wasn't always easy to do.

The scene in the saloon where Wild Bill kills the guy who suddenly attacks him also was extremely realistic as in the real west shootouts were sudden and usually involved an ambush as with the gunman who pretended to be asleep until he got a chance as Bill turned his back.

The least realistic scene to me was Jack in his fancy gunfighter suit walking into that saloon looking all hard-eyed and all. He has no reputation as a gunman, just a silly outfit, and going into a saloon and looking at people as he did and acting tough likely would have got him killed before he reached the bar. The West was a rough place, filled with rough characters.