Point of Honor

I was amused while watching it. I think the clothes, the landscape, the buildings were really good, just how I would imagine them to be in this age. I loved the story, the characters. The actors gave a very amusing act. I recommend it for everyone, and I'm really looking forward to seeing the whole series. The end is shocking. What I really loved was the conversations, the characters made their best on those. If you are looking for a show in this period of time, you have to take a look at it. I'm not a history teacher, but found it pretty correct. Sorry for the mistakes I could have made while writing this, I'm not English. I hope I gave you mood to watch this pilot, and I hope Amazon will order the entire show.

the hair is supposed to be worn up not down during the day with a center part. The head must be covered when outside. Dresses during the day had a high neckline not this off the shoulders bust spilling out look. Evening dresses had low necklines but not that low. Really people you should have done better research! Plus the costume (wardrobe) designer should have known better! There is a lot of photographic evidence, books, and museums that you can go to, to get the answers. If you want it done right hire the people who eat sleep breathe this stuff every weekend during the summer. You make us look bad... sure the hobby is expensive however we do put a lot of time and effort into researching images of period dresses, materials, sewing techniques, head ware (hats & bonnets) and drafting patterns from the original dresses. Some of these dresses are pure eye candy, yes we metaphorically drool over exquisite dresses and gorgeous fabrics. It takes me at least SIX MONTHS to sew one of my dresses.

Set in the South at the beginning of the Civil War. sets are good, acting top notch, the idea of fighting for ones beliefs, whether they conform to those around you or not is a classic idea, but I've never seen it done this way before. The situation provides for multiple conflicts, along a variety of issues within one family trying to keep their place in Southern Society, fighting for the Southern states rights while embracing the ideals of all men created equal in itself would be enough conflict, but with the addition of an in-law being on the other side makes for even more tension and drama. just going to say: if they only continue on with one of the Amazon Prime's new shows, I hope it is this one.

Why is everyone calling this a show? Anyway I'm glad it never took off. Australian accent, daytime TV camera quality and poor acting aside, this is just straight up apologia for the South and its ridiculous view of itself. Yes they owned slaves but they knew it was wrong! Thomas Jefferson did too, despite not bothering to free his own children in his will (knew it was wrong though), look how noble whitey is descending down freein' the slaves to "Amazing Grace" after the sisters pitched a fit about it but were magically immediately converted because of their genetic nobility no doubt. Despite the believable actions the protagonist John freeing the slaves /s he nevertheless quit West Point to fight for the Confederacy because reasons. Because HONOR, damnit. Compelled not just to fight, but to raise his own rabble regiment out of the extremely racist PoS that were previously plotting to kill his sisters over the rumour of some freed slaves! Such was John's nobility. Because that nasty West Point General was going to attack Virginia and burn it all down! All because of a little thing like owning human beings. John was just like the noble DEFINITELY knew that slavery was wrong hero, Robert E. Lee! Who definitely wasn't a slave-owning traitor who enslaved free black men from the North to fight for the South *wink*! What was he supposed to do? Support the humanists and the actual United States? Lol no. Honor (whispers loudly: and slavery).

It's clear from the start that this revisionist look at the Civil War was in trouble when we find an Australian practically devoid of accent, Nathan Parsons, in one of the starring roles of "Point of Honor" as a West Point cadet from Virginia. His character, John Rhodes, is the eldest son of Virginia plantation owner Ralston Rhodes (played by journeyman actor Brett Cullen), a man who has unbeknownst to his family virtually destroyed their finances due to poor record keeping. To worsen their financial situation son John frees his family's slaves in an announcement to his fellow cadets on the eve of his leaving West Point to return to Virginia to defend his state in the coming hostilities. The plot hole of exactly why or how John is in a position to free slaves that presumably actually belong to his father is not explained.

Therein lies the revisionist problem with this entire episode. Hollywood has been on a tear in recent years portraying the social position of 19th century African-Americans in a light more favorable than they actually experienced (see Common's role in AMC's "Hell on Wheels" for another more recent example). Personally I think this is an injustice to African-Americans as an entire generation may be brought up not entirely understanding the plight of their people in years gone by. Like most (if not all) Southern states, Virginia law forbade the freeing of slaves. On rare occasions this law was skirted since the actual wording of the law was that any freed slaves must be removed from the state. The way around this was to have the slaves taken off shore via ship (thus out of the state), freed, and then brought back into the state: a cumbersome set of steps that most assuredly would take too much time to portray on screen. In my opinion there were other options more compelling such as the portrayal of free blacks in slave society which, although unusual, was not as uncommon as some might think.

In addition to the rewriting of history there were subtle errors with props, historical timelines and geography that gnawed at me as I saw them on screen such as the handguns owned by the Rhodes family. I don't think I've ever seen guns that were more toy-like than those seen in this episode. Next, the best friend of John Rhodes from West Point, a Northerner and presumably John's somewhat reluctant opponent in the series, talks to his commanding officer immediately after the firing on Fort Sumter about cutting off the railroad lines into Richmond in an effort to defeat the South early on. First, I think the writers might think Richmond was the capital of the Confederacy, but it was several months after Fort Sumter before that happened. Second, they were far more concerned with protecting Washington, DC in the early days of the war than making incursions to the south of Richmond. The main rail lines into Richmond weren't actually cut until 1864.

There were a few things to like though such as the costumes which were top notch. The military uniforms looked to be straight out of a museum. Unlike others giving low reviews I thought the film location was fairly spot on for the Lynchburg, VA area (I travel there several times a year on business so I'm quite familiar with it) although one character made it sound like the Potomac was just over the hill from Lynchburg, VA when in fact it's a couple hours away even by car.

I REALLY wanted to like this show especially after reading that Carlton Cuse was a writer, but after watching the episode I have a hard time believing he was involved with this project. I'm usually pretty good with ignoring plot inconsistencies when watching an engaging TV show or movie, but the creators and writers of this program are asking too much of this amateur historian with an apparently limited ability to suspend disbelief.