The producers have implied they didn't want to make an anti-government movie. It would've been too negative, too hard to sell. Instead they watered down Dee Brown's book to make it palatable to viewers. That may have been a marketable choice, but it sure wasn't a moral one. Wolf and company have said all the right things in published interviews. They may not even be aware that they softened Brown's emphasis. But a lack of conscious intent doesn't change the results. HBO's movie is prejudiced against Indians. To recap: According to "Bury My Heart," the Indians massacred the soldiers at Little Big Horn. The Army was merely emulating the tactics of the Sioux before them. Dawes had a noble plan to save the Indians. Sitting Bull cared more about his perks than his people. Modern life was too much for Indians such as Eastman to handle. The deaths of Sitting Bull and the Sioux at Wounded Knee were unfortunate mistakes. If that isn't an anti-Indian bias, I'm not sure what is. "Bury My Heart" takes a clear case of wrongdoing and muddles it. In this version of history, there are no good or bad guys. Flawed Americans, flawed Indians ... they're all the same. For the full review, go to Bury My Heart Review.
Rob Schmidt
« HBO Buries the Truth at Wounded Knee | Main | The Kathi Chronicles »
"Bury My Heart's" Bias Against Indians
Search
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on June 1, 2007 3:20 PM.
The previous post in this blog was HBO Buries the Truth at Wounded Knee.
The next post in this blog is The Kathi Chronicles .
Many more can be found on the Main Index page or by looking through the Archives.
Comments (1)
Talk about bias Mr. Schmidt! Little Bighorn was a massacre by anyone’s definition. Should Bury My Heart have included
a disclaimer telling the audience that it was a justified massacre? Without the disclaimer is there a danger that the
audience might think the Indians were too hard on the cavalry?
Do you really believe that someone unfamiliar with American history would watch that film and get a message that the
conquering of the Indians was ok?
Btw, can you direct me to the source of your statement that the producers “implied they didn’t want to make an
anti-government movie”?
"In this version of history, there are no good or bad guys. Flawed Americans, flawed Indians ... they're all the same."
They are the same, they are all human. If the Indians had the manpower and weapons advantages over the settlers and it
became clear that the two cultures could not mutually exist, do you think the Indians would have been any more fair,
kindly, or sympathetic to their defeated enemies than the settlers were to them? If so, what evidence can you direct me
to in support of that notion?
I could go through each of your criticisms but I see no point in doing so. You don’t seem to be open to the
possibility that Indians are human. It sounds as if you prefer a version of history where all Indians are noble and
peace loving while the very first settlers and all who came after them intended to extinguish the Indian race as soon as
possible.
You might like Dances With Wolves. Some Indians criticize that film for romanticizing their history. In the future, I
will refer those Indians to the less romanticized Bury My Heart.
I do wish the filmmakers could learn to split hairs a bit more accurately so they could satisfy everyone in one film.
{sigh}
Posted by talking dreams | June 3, 2007 3:14 PM
Posted on June 3, 2007 15:14