"The Crossing" Topic

On YouTube
YouTube link

Damn it,man, I am sure His Excellency didnt swear quite as much as that.

I really like that movie.

So do I!

Loved that movie. I liked Jeff Daniels' portrayal of Washington.

Great movie

Still watch it on DVD from time to time. After Jeff Daniel's Washington, I could not get used to others.

It is a great movie, there is a reenactment every year at Washington's Crossing on the Delaware on New Year's day.

Brit uniforms were awful. Looked like they raided the props from Last of the Mohicans.

Let's not get into Wrong Facing Syndrome with the Hessians either.
No orange, no black, no red.
I'm ok with that.

Apropos of that last: "The American army had been decimated… slaughtered in their hundreds by German mercenary troops known as Hessians."

Howard Fast might need to check his notes there(Appropriate emoticon).

Howard Fast was a dedicated Communist who saw in the American Revolution the example for the world to follow.
Some of the finest AWI fiction came from his pen. Or typewriter.
April Morning
Citizen Tom Paine
The Hessian
Many more.

He's my favorite Commie!
You need a good representation of tyranny and Hessians fit the bill.
Why do we require our novels and movies to be history books?

We- I- require a historical novel to bear some honest relation to the facts. Or I will feel moved to comment.

The opening narration is clearly meant to set up the climactic coup against the Hessian garrison at Trenton. I get that but it is still bo££ocks.

We can continue to disseminate myths that serve one agenda or another. Or we can grow up.

It's been calculated that under 500 Americans (c.481?) died in the fight for New York; between Long Island and Fort Washington; probably about the same number as British.

How many of those were 'slaughtered,' whether by by 'German mercenaries known as Hessians' or others, we can discuss.

There's nothing to discuss. It's a novel. If I were teaching a history class on Trenton, I would have Stryker, Fischer etc as required reading.
If I were teaching a class on how an author's political beliefs influenced his novels, I would feature Howard Fast.
Is Gone with the Wind a historical text on the Civil War?

The book and movie both captured the desperation of the situation Washington faced. It's what novels and movies do.

I have no nits to pick over April Morning either.

Actually, in this instance, it's a 'TV movie' dealing with a key episode in the American War of Independence, also part of the nation's foundation myth, and evidently from the opening narration, it purports to be history. I imagine many of those watching will assume it is broadly stating the truth rather than being essentially fiction. I note that the titles do not state the film is adapted from a novel but from Howard Fast's 'book'

But if that's how Last's novel opens, well, it's also bo££ocks.

I don't believe many historical persons feature as characters in 'Gone With the Wind.' Wade Hampton features in the distance, as I recall.

I'm a Hessian with agression
It must be true because I saw it in a bugs bunny cartoon

I saw the movie when it first came on A&E and loved it. I bought the DVD to watch as part of the research for my Trenton game. It didn't age well.

The first thing I noticed was snow. There wasn't any in the movie. The battle was fought in near blizzard conditions. Reminded me of the old Battle of the Bulge movie with Henry Fonda.

The second thing I noticed was the church with the onion dome. None of those were at Trenton. It was filmed somewhere near Toronto. As Jeff Daniels made light of the fact they went to Canada to film a battle which took place in New Jersey, when he was on one of the late night talk shows recently.

It came across as a cheap, no budget, made for TV movie. But I guess beggars can't be choosy. It was just nice to have a movie about the American Revolution that made an attempt at some sort of historical accuracy. In regards to my research, it was totally useless.

link

I think Daniels did an excellent job. I think a lot of the performances were good. I would like to see it done again with a much bigger budget and with snow.

I would never think of using a movie it tv show for research.
It gets the feel right.

I don't think much of the argument "People will think that this is the way it really happened, if this is the only thing they have to watch."
Who is harmed? As Maximus the gladiator said, "Are you not entertained?"
I'm glad the ignorant masses got the lesson. If they bothered to turn it on.

If I give The Patriot a D-, I give The Crossing a solid A.
Do you have any better AWI movie?

Was Glover really that feisty and anti-establishment?
I don't know, but Fast needed an Everyman hero.

I think you might have been setting up a red coated strawman or two, there, for the bold colonial riflemen to shoot down.

I wasn't talking about the ignorant masses, I believe you you were; or at least those who might have the benefit of being instructed under your very own tutelage; and I made no reference to what the gullible public might think because thay had no other source of information

My point was that the passage in question purported to be history and the viewers might not all have the advantage of knowing, as you do, it came from a novel written by a commie frothing at the mouth.

I think it is fair to observe that the passage was not only bo££ocks, but (while I have the talking stick) misleading , outmoded and sentimental to boot, purveying a hairy old, smelly old myth, long past its shelf date. Just my opinion of course.

As it is, I don't hold with your common denominator principle which seems to me to be an excuse for mediocrity and why should 'we' settle for mediocrity if we know there can be better?

I am not saying viewers shouldn't enjoy 'The Crossing,' 'The Patriot' or the 'Hector Heathcote Show, and find them fun, exciting or moving, of course not, but I do reserve the right to point out manipulative bo££ocks when I see it.

Well, not the 'Hector Heathcote Show', obviously; although my favourite would have to be 'Bunker Hill Bunny.'

Wow, tough crowd. It definitely is not accurate history. Though I like Daniels portrayal, it does not reflect the 18th century demeanor of someone like Washington.

However, I like the movie for what it is. At least it gives a basic historical context in an entertaining way. In my son's history class, he was the only one who knew that the Civil War was before World War 1. Anything will help at this point.

In my son's history class, he was the only one who knew that the Civil War was before World War 1. Anything will help at this point.

I still have the date chart that gave us a basic structure and time line through 900 years. Who'd have thought we were so privileged?

Winston/John:

First of all, I am not doing research for a dissertation. I am doing it for a game. I like to use a wide variety of sources. You never know what you may learn. The movie was a small part of it. In fact I didn't even listed it in the bibliography. Here are some of my sources,

Research of the historic buildings were conducted online by me at the New York Historical Society, Trenton Museum, Trenton Historical Society, George Washington's Papers at the Library of Congress, Hathi Trust Digital Library and other online sources.

Bibliography and recommended reading:

"Trenton One Hundred Years Ago" by William S. Stryker, 1876.
"The Battles of Trenton and Princeton" by William S. Stryker, 1898
"Trenton and Princeton, 1776-77" By David Bonk, 2009
"1776" by David McCullough, 2005
"A Memoir of General John Glover, of Marblehead" by William P. Upham, 1863
"I Was a Hessian Grenadier at the Battle of Trenton: Dec. 26, 1776" by Gary Schreckengost, 2016
"The Winter Soldiers: The Battles for Trenton and Princeton" by Richard M. Ketchum, 2014

I thought the performances, especially Daniels was great. The movie lacked production value. I don't think it is asking too much for more snow in a battle that took place in the middle of winter during a blizzard. I don't think it is too much to ask, to edit out one onion dome building, which looks completely out of place. I don't care if the Hessian units had the wrong facing colors or had the wrong buttons.

Great movie. For it's faults as history, at least the makers understood the realities of leadership, which is what the movie is about. (Haven't read the book, so I can't state whether Fast meant for it to be that.)

Regardless of Fast's hyperbole, the Continental Army (and the assorted militia) were in bad shape. It is entirely true that the whole thing could have fallen apart, had not Washington acted in such a decisive and surprising manner. The movie captures this beautifully. Might Washington have been a bit less crude in a few scenes? Well, we don't know. Our curse words are very old, and men around other men (particularly in a military setting) will coarsen in ways they won't "in polite company." And it would be like Washington to use a shocking element (as telling Henry Knox to "shift his fat ") to encourage the common men with a moment of confidence and levity in a crucial, even desperate situation. As far as I know, it's an entirely made up line, and the early mythologists of the day certainly would not have written anything like it, or presented any of the Founders' behavior in such a way (though we know many could be quite self-centered and even immoral in behavior, despite being "gentlemen"). But our knowledge of humanity suggests that, yes, Washington would have done whatever was necessary to lead his men to victory. (After all, this was the general who, as an early act upon taking command in Boston, grabbed two brawling militiamen, lifted them bodily into the air, and all but knocked their heads together to stop the fight— an action which no general (or gentleman) of the day would be expected to do. But it certainly impressed the common men of the day! And, I suspect, firmly established that General Washington was *in charge,* and could make that case physically, if needed. Which I suspect Washington knew was a message worth sending.)

In any case, whether it "really happened that way" or not, it's one of the best AWI movies ever made. Which is proof that it's not about facings or buildings or even blizzards; it's about storytelling. I am willing to forgive a lot when the budget is limited, if the story is good. It's when the budget is big enough to get it right that I agree that more accuracy is worth inserting.

No blizzard?
Idunno but they looked cold to me.
Ask any film director or producer how expensive it is to film "in the snow".

Just one snow machine like the ones used on the ski slopes and for Hollywood movies could have done wonders. One little visual edit could have lent more credibility to the town. Relatively inexpensive fixes. It had little to do with the budget. It is just as easy to do it somewhat correct as it is to do it incorrect. Hey historygamer help me out here!

You would think this movie was on the AFI top five list, the way everyone is so sensitive about it.

With reference to the language, it is certainly the case that Washington was reported to have 'lost it' in front of the troops only twice : once after the Kips Bay landings in New York when certain Virginia regiments (an added shame) broke and ran in the face of the British bombardment and initial advance, and secondly, when he confronted General Lee at Monmouth Courthouse having found Lee's division retreating in confusion. Much was made of Washington's swearing at Lee.

This image could, of course, have been built up in the C19th as part of the Washington myth but did Fast know otherwise or was he making it up as he went along? It is still a tenet that officers should not swear in front of the men; how much more so when the social divide was far greater and notions of how a gentleman should behave, and of personal dignity and honour, were strongly felt and upheld.

There were, obviously, exceptions, which in the case of prominent men was usually commented upon: viz. William Howe's concubines and the conduct of his personal staff. Personal lapses seem to have been deplored especially among the morally upright colonists. Washington had enemies, yet it seems they could find little in his personal conduct to use against him; hence the reaction to his swearing at Charles Lee as being wholly out of character, and- I cannot tell a lie- strength of character was the key to Washington's determination and resilience, as well as his political survival.

Bearing in mind that a tabletop wargame with toy soldiers bears very little resemblance to an actual battle, except insofar as the uniforma may be the right colours, and is surely an 'imaginative' or 'artistic' portrayal of the historical event, there seems no reason why one shouldn't use an entertaining film as inspiration for an equally entertaining wargame!

Quite so!

42flanker:

I agree. Especially as Washington was obsessed with etiquette, even by 18th century standards.

PDF link

Though soldiering may bring out a different sort of behavior, it would not be that far off the mark. When you look at the good books noted above on the battle, witnesses to George Washington's behavior bear this out. The social divide was more acute as well at the time.

None the less, I like The Crossing and agree it is one of the better AWI movies out there, noting that few even exist. Stil worth watching as a history and wargame buff.

Jeff Daniels was reportedly a jerk on set. Wouldn't pose for pictures with the extras, had to have an oversized three-cornered hat to be "larger than life," etc. The reenactor extras derisively referred to him as "Captain Crunch."

Someone told me:

Much was made of Washington's swearing at Lee.

All of it by people who (a) weren't present when Washington and Lee actually met each other, and (b) whose own improper behaviour (eg withdrawing without orders leaving a flank exposed) might have led them to want to distract the masses.

@21eRgt: Setting aside that your report is hearsay of hearsay, I can understand why an actor in the middle of his work might not go around posing for pictures with every Tom, Dick & Harry who happened to be part of the film (especially when there would be at least a hundred or more hanging about). It'd not be unlikely constantly stopping a surgeon in the middle of the operating theater for selfies with the gang. The man's at work, dude, not hanging around your house. Unlike the extras, who just have to march, shoot, run and maybe yell on cue, the actor has copious lines to remember, a character's entire persona to portray, not to mention all the physical action of the sequence which will need to be essentially repeated over and over with as little variation as possible from potentially more than one camera angle. Many actors find it essential not to be interrupted or distracted during their work so as to maintain their essential concentration. It's not being a jerk, it's focusing on what they have to do to perform their craft. And it's not easy work, either. Most people not involved in acting don't understand this, in no small part due to the fact that the best acting appears easy and natural, because it appears entirely spontaneous on the part of the character. But for the actor, it's not spontaneous at all. Everything an actor does in a scene is a deliberate choice, meant to convey what the character is supposed to be feeling and reacting to, even though the actor isn't feeling these things or reacting to anything personally at all. Yes, there are plenty of actors who don't do this, or just "play themselves" in the scene. But I dare say what you heard expressed was the reaction of someone with little understanding of the business or the work involved.
As for the larger hat, it in fact makes sense in the context of scenes where many of the actors are essentially wearing nearly identical outfits and the camera is some distance away. Making the main character stand out in the confusion is the job of the costume director, and I'm willing to bet that Washington had a big tri-corner hat because the director and costume director agreed it was necessary for that very reason, and had it available for that purpose. What you heard third-hand (if that) as vanity was probably not that at all, but a genuine desire to meet the requirements of the visual medium, and in consideration of the expected audience.
And that, by the way, is the explanation for many things that happen in films that wargamers love to decry: decisions made for the necessity of clarity to the audience when the final product is on the screen. After all, a film isn't an attempt to recreate history— it's an attempt to tell a story. History may be the setting and the inspiration, but the story is the paramount purpose. And The Crossing does an excellent job of it!