Talk:Little Big Man (film)
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- King, Mike (2008). "Little Big Man". The American Cinema of Excess: Extremes of the National Mind on Film. McFarland. pp. 137–140. ISBN 0786439882.
Who Wrote The Main Article
This article is incredibly bad. It's written poorly, and it is plainly inaccurate in many areas. I can't believe how bad it is. Someone needs to go through and clean it up. Please!22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Needs a spoiler warning.
- Done. Konczewski 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would say this film perfectly spoils the Custer "legend". :)
It is too bad that so much of this article is devoted to the film and virtually nothing to the book. The book, as usual, was far better than the Hollywood synopsis, and worthy of being read. It also covers a lot more historical ground than the movie and is quite plausible, in that it would be entirely possible for an individual in that time and place to have done everything and met everyone depicted in the book. Mind you it was not likely but it was possible for someone to cover that much ground in their lifetime.
It would be nice to have some information about the historical figure "Little Big Man." I found this:
"There really was a Little Big Man but he was little like the character in the film. The real Little Big Man was an Oglala Lakota, a fearless and respected warrior who fought alongside Crazy Horse against Bear Coat Miles. He opposed the treaty and the commission that wanted to take the Black Hills from the Sioux. He was later made into an agency policeman by the white man." http://www.ronaldbrucemeyer.com/reviews/bigman.htm
kerim 22:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The historical basis section of the article needs citations. The massacre shown in the film lead by Custer against Old Lodge Skins' tribe resembles the Battle of Washita River more than it does the Sand Creek Massacre, although it could be argued that the film combines the two. The major reasons for the massacre resembling the Battle of Washita river is how the US soldiers killed the ponies, and how Custer lead the Massacre. The major reasons for the massacre resembling the Sand Creek massacre are how there was little resistance, and how Old Lodge Skins (who resembles Black Kettle) survived. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 04:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I love this movie. One thing I took away from it were two illustrations of how a person of one culture can misunderstand or be misunderstood by a person of another culture.
In the first instance, young Jack, returned to white society, is asked something like, "Boy, can you drive a buckboard?". Jack hesitates, and then bravely answers, "Yes". When it turns out that he really does not know how, he is treated as a liar. But I think that, in the Indian culture that Jack had just returned from, he would never be asked if he could do something unless the questioner knew that he could, so that Jack interpreted the question as meaning something more like, "Boy, I know you can drive a buckboard, and it is time for you to do it." A serious miscommunication.
The second example is that it becomes clear by the end that the statement, by an Indian, "Today is a good day to die", can mean something more like, "What a great day!".
I disagree with the above comments. First of all, the question, "Boy, can you drive a buckboard?" is responded with, "Yes sir... right good." Then the reverend replies with, "You're a liar. You were raised by the Indians. How could you possibly know how to drive a wagon? We shall have to beat the lying out of you." At no time it is made apparent that Jack, who at the time of his adoption by the Indians, was actually a boy of some advanced age ... perhaps 8 or 10 years ... does not know how to drive a wagon. He may well have been experienced in the operation of a horse drawn wagon, as this would not have been unusual at the time. There is no depiction in the film that leads us to believe that he does not know how to drive a wagon, and so we are left to wonder. But this is not the point of the scene. What we are meant to see is the attitude of the minister, which is that Jack is a liar, not to be trusted, assumed to be an incompetent, and one who is deserving of being beaten. This stands in contrast to the way he was treated by the Cheyenne, who rescued him and his sister. They were taken in, fed, treated at first as honored guests, and then adopted as members of the tribe. This all goes to reinforce what I contend is the whole point of this film, which is to make a movie the opposite of most hollywood films about Indians, and show things from the Indian perspective, which is that "White people are crazy."Bigdatut (talk)