The premise behind Toplin's book is a very interesting one. When Ken Burns' epic documentary on the Civil War received the highest ratings in public television's history, historian's immediately began to comment on it. Toplin brought together, in this one volume, many of today's most notable Civil War Era historians to turn their comments into essays about the film's pros and cons. Unfortunately, the historians only seem to care about the cons. With "The Civil War", Burns was attempting to educate the public at large, not the academic historian. This fact seems to be lost upon the authors of these essays. The primary focus of the criticisms in this book do not deal with the film itself, but rather with what the film forgot. Most complaints are geared towards the treatment of women and blacks. This is because the authors of these essays are primarily social historians, with the exception of Prof. Gallagher and Prof. Boritt. It is no surprise then that the majority of the essays scathe Burns for not telling the whole story of slavery, or of women, or of Reconstruction. By doing this, these authors have missed the point that the film series is about war, not social change. Therefore, this book only gets three stars because the content is not of good quality. While each author is correct in their statements about what Burns left out, they do not grasp what Burns was attempting to do. The most interesting part of the book in fact is when Burns and his writer Ward respond to the historians responses, and I believe put them in their place. I suggest reading this after viewing the films, but take what they say with a grain of salt, and do not judge the film series by what is written in this book.

This book was fairly good in how it compiled complaints lodged by historians against the PBS series, "The Civil War". However, one critic (Leon Litwack) was extremely off base in his condemnation of Burns and Shelby Foote. Because they didn't think soldiers of the USCT were supermen, Litwack can't stand them. Litwack needs to plow through the accounts of battles in which the USCT participated. These soldiers could stand up to battle like white troops, but they weren't any better. Litwack is just in the thralls of PC-mania and refuses to acknowledge fact. Overall, though, the book is worth reading if one ignores the ignorance of certain critics.

This book is a riot. I have always thought Ken Burns' Civil War miniseries was a one of the best 12 hours of TV ever shown. The series recently aired again for the first time in a few years and it's just as good as I remembered, possibly even better. Granted, it's not perfect and one could probably nitpick it forever, but few TV shows have ever equaled it for sheer emotional impact. This book is not about nitpicking. It is about politically correct professors ripping it to shreads, and is it ever funny. In general, they whine about how the series devotes too much time talking about battles between dead white males, instead of the really important stuff, such as slavery, women's issues, class struggles, and the like. One (I think it was Eric Foner) has a bone up his kiester over the fact that the miniseries devotes almost nothing to Reconstruction (his speciality, by the way) and instead shows photos and movies of Confederate and Union veterans at a reunion picnic at Gettysburg. Another complains about the use of the term Rebel. Somebody whined about the fact that Shelby Foote, the white Southern popular writer got more airtime than Barbera Fields, the black female professor. And so on. If you want to know why liberal professors get so little attention outside their own circles and why, on the other hand, non-specialist Civil War history is so popular, you have to read this book. It's worth it for the laughs alone.

Oliver Stone slandered an innocent man in the film JFK. The greatest film critic of all, Pauline Kael, said Stone was a lousy screenwriter, and she's right. And Oliver Stone's response at the end of the book to Gerald Posner's book on the JFK assassination CASE CLOSED (that proves convincingly that Oswald was a lone gunman) is just absurd!! Every sin Stone says Posner committed--and in fact did not commit in most cases--Stone committed a million times more in JFK! I've rarely seen greater hypocrisy than I saw in Stone's Posner piece. If you want to read about an irrational, paranoid, egomaniac, go ahead and read this silly book.

Avoid this if you're a right wing reactionary. This book conveys Oliver Stone's views on his films and, as that includes a harsh critique of the military and the Republican party, I assume shallow right-wingers will want to gag. Unfortunately for them, Stone has more intelligence, humour and ability as a storyteller then all of them combined and, as a result, he'll always be far more influential. Let's hope they don't assasinate him.

Oliver Stone is one of the most brilliant and provocative filmmakers working today and in this book we get a great taste of the debate over his work from both sides of the field. The book as a whole is very readable and never boring. Stone fans (like myself) and Stone bashers alike will get a good kick out of this book. The essay and responses to critics that Stone writes are fascinating, informative and speak to the free intellectual spirit and as in his great movies, Stone comes out as a man who really is aware of how the world works. I admire his writing here because it is an encouragement to people to educate themselves and read and do their own research and open their eyes. This book can be provocative intellectually and generally. The critics of Stone here also make some points, but not strong enough in my opinion, Stephen Ambrose comes off as a false historian who does not look at historical events from more than one angle or opinion. Stone easily dismisses his weak attacks. There is also a great deal of good dissection of the Stone films mentioned here which range from "Salvador" to "Nixon." Rock enthusiasts will like the article dealing with Stone's film on Jim Morrison, "The Doors" and Stone's own comments on Morrison and his music. The most provocative articles are those on the two most fiery political films Stone has made, "JFK" and "Nixon." These are provocative pieces because Stone challenges our views of official history and dares us to look behind the veils of the news, historians and some writings. This is not just a book for film buffs or Stone fans and critics, it is a book for people who enjoy good, smart debating and dissections of intellectual arguments. I enjoyed it because it is a breather for people looking for a really smart book. And yes, film buffs should definately read it because it deals greatly with how movies handle fact and fiction and it has important things to say on the role of the cinema in society and art in general. A fascinating, provocative and enjoyable book.

this book shows a great deal of attention to the flubbs in hollywood, but in some cases, the information is too much. for instance, it is great to know where Patton was shot and where all of the equipment came from, but the essay lacks a clear thesis. for an academic text, i am disappointed.

How does Hollywood distort history?
Toplin, a history professor at the University of North Carolina, describes four of Hollywood's principal methods of treating (or mistreating) history: mixing fact with fiction, shaping evidence to deliver specific conclusions, suggesting messages for the present in stories about the past, and fabricating a documentary style to develop the "Great Man" perspective on the past.
The techniques are employed in works as varied as "Bonnie and Clyde", " Sergeant York", and Oliver (I-don't-have-to-tell-the-truth-I'm-an-artist) Stone's "JFK", but while Toplin (naturally) respects historical accuracy, he acknowledges the narrative and dramatic necessities which inevitably contaminate the historical reality. He also notes special interest pressures to have movies reflect particular interpretations, and the film-makers' responses to criticisms of their historical veracity. A worthwhile look at some of Hollywood's reconstructions of the past, and their connections to larger issues.

(The "score" rating is an ineradicable feature of the page. This reviewer does not "score' books).

Three and a half stars, really. The book gives some guidelines for what the author sees as the distinctive genre of "cinematic history" (his term--not very well defined--for a movie dealing with an historical event). He then argues by example about good and bad cinematic history, regularly invoking the genre requirements and the pressure to entertain that he sees as necessarily constraining factors in the creation of historical films. With the exception of a chapter-long discussion of a 1970s PBS docudrama, for which the author served as an historical consultant, none of the analyses are very extended. This seems a shame, as he is apt to see interesting things in the films that he does discuss. As the title implies, the attitude of the author is generally quite permissive about liberties taken by filmmakers. I think what he calls history, I'd call myth. Movies are mythic in their portrayal of the past. They have more in common with a short story, or even a poem, than they do with a history text. The implicit conception of the audience isn't very flattering, but probably accurate enough: most viewers won't pay attention to stories that don't conform to a critical mass of Hollywood techniques. The author tells historians, with some justification, to lighten up, but he does his best work in exposing the errors, sloppy thinking and general fallaciousness of academic film criticism over the past 30 years. The writing style is lucid and even lively at times, though he has an annoying habit of stringing long series of questions together, often without systematic effort to address those questions. Browse for the good sections, then dig in to those. On the level of extended argument, the book suffers somewhat (with the exception of the portion in which he takes on the film studies professoriate); but for bright insights, and intelligent moments, it stands up as an enjoyable read.