Talk:Santa Fe Trail (film)

"Controversy"

See edit this date. When you don't even attempt to be encyclopedic or document your points, you run the risk of being deleted. Since this entire section was anonymously written, I expect nothing, but I'll give it a month for anyone to rewrite and source. BTW I agree with the basic premise, but the holier-than-thou super-modifiers and inferences are over the top.--Reedmalloy (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Controversy" entry makes good points about the film's effort to paper over North-South differences, but its unfriendliness to John Brown and his methods are hardly unique then or now. It's a racist film in the way it suggests a certain support for a status-quo system that permits slavery, and for the scuzzy way we see Brown's abolitionist followers portrayed, but calling it "racist" misses much of the point. "Santa Fe Trail" does make an effort to suggest the merits of the abolitionist cause, albeit it in a weak way (both Ronald Reagan as George Custer and Olivia de Havilland as Kit Halliday express anti-slavery sentiment, and Errol Flynn's J.E.B. Stuart admits the points against slavery are strong, but that the South should handle it in its own way and time.) Like the "Controversy" author suggests, much of this may have been mandated by Warners to placate Southern viewers on the eve of another great conflict. But to modern eyes, it leans too far in that direction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.199.161.238 (talk) 03:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

"Plot" and general tone

The "Plot" section is currently just a diatribe against the film's use of fiction in its story. While many of these points seem interesting enough to warrant inclusion in the article, they are misplaced under Plot, which should just be a neutral description of the actual film's narrative. Secondly, the tone in the article overall is out of keeping with an encyclopedia. The article says the film has "glaring inaccuracies," for example, as opposed to creative license. It's a film, not a work of history, so what expectation is there that it should rigidly conform to history. Shakespeare took as many liberties or more in his historical plays but this is rightfully seen as of pretty minor importance in articles like Henry IV, part 1. Some of the complaints appear to have more to do with interpretation than neutral fact. Since John Brown remains controversial today, I doubt whether his violent characterization in Santa Fe Trail reflects the "blatantly racist overtones" of the movies of the period so much as it does standard historical works of that time. Bottom line, any article that asserts that a minor Errol Flynn film "caused immeasurable harm to the American conscience" has simply lost its bearings.69.106.75.244 (talk) 19:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)