El Oeste de Robert Redford

For me and for most Americans there is nothing more interesting than the story of the West. From the Civil War until World War 1, the West was full of adventure, opportunity, drama and tragedy. AMCs series "Hell on Wheels" was an excellent attempt to portray one aspect of this period, the building of the railroads. But their far more ambitious "The American West" is a big disappointment on a number of levels.

For a documentary, the use of "expert" opinion from movie stars is hardly a good idea. Have we stooped so low that we get our history from movie stars?

Perhaps the reliance on movie stars for the primary documentation is one of the reasons this 8 part series has so many errors (e.g., Jesse James and Billy the Kid met, Wyatt Earp went to Tombstone to be their Sheriff).

Another weakness of the series is that there is no real underlying theme. There are brief episodes about Jesse James (Missouri), Billy the Kid (New Mexico), Wyatt Earp (Kansa and Arizona), and Custer and Sitting Bull (the Dakotas). But there is no real glue that holds the episodes together (e.g., the demands of capitalism to obtain natural resources, the political post war climate, the economic problems and the challenges of currency, etc.)

Telling the story of the West is an important project, but this series fails to do it in a meaningful way. FWIW - I really like the TV series "Centennial" (1978-79) and "Hell on Wheels" (2011-16). They both gave a comprehensive history of the West and did so in a more entertaining manner. For sheer pleasure, "Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid" (1973) is my favorite telling of this story.

This review is based on the version shown in Europe under the title "Robert Redford's The West". I'm not aware of any differences apart from the title and I'd be surprised if there were given the skimpy production values of the series. The series of eight one-hour shows sets out to tell the tale of the West through six lives Custer, Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, Jesse James, Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp. We get a narrative over reenactments interspersed with to-camera pieces from lots of actors who appeared in Westerns and some actual historians. I found the series very disappointing. The recreation of the Little Big Horn would embarrass a troop of amateur re-enactors. More substantial is the myriad inaccuracies and omissions. In telling the tale of the James brothers I don't recall a mention of the Younger Brothers. We're shown a map of the Battle of the Little Big Horn that shows Reno's and Custer's advances but doesn't show Benteen's nor is he mentioned in the narrative. Billy the Kid's escape all happens on the ground floor. There's no Pete Maxwell in Pete Maxwell's bedroom when Billy is shot. The viewer is given no context as to why either man was in the room (the link being Maxwell). As presented Morgan and Virgil Earp are shot on the same night. Others more knowledgeably than myself have and could point out many more flaws in the series. Did I learn anything? Yes. A young John Wayne met an elderly Wyatt Earp.

The story of the American West, from the US's expansion post the Civil War to the late 1800s. Told through the story lines of several famous central figures in that history: George Armstrong Custer, Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Jesse James, Billy the Kid and Wyatt Earp.

A reasonably interesting telling of the settlement and taming of the American West. The lives of the famous figures are dramatized well, playing out like a docu-drama.

However, the documentary is fairly shallow. Because of the concentration on these main characters, you don't get to know about much else. There is some broader history but this is just to provide a context to the actions of these characters.

In addition, the jumping between the characters gets irritating. Rather than tell each of their stories in one go, giving each of them an episode, they jump back and forth, generally segued with "Meanwhile, x miles away..." (That sentence grew very irritating after a while).

Not entirely accurate either. Some of this is deliberate - changing history to suit the fragile sensitivities of today's youth - revisionist history, basically. Some of it is just sloppiness, e.g. Custer being shown as a 2-star general when he was actually now a Lt Colonel.

And then there's the interviews. Since when are Hollywood stars history experts? For example, just because Kiefer Sutherland played a cowboy in Young Guns doesn't make him an expert on the Wild West. The input by historians is about 5-10%, Hollywood stars the rest, and the stars don't have much informative to say.

Overall, reasonably entertaining but don't expect to get a decent knowledge of that portion of US history, or even an accurate one.

I have to admit, when I watched this series, I was jarred by some of the inaccuracies I could see without being a specialist in the West. The costumer cut corners and used the same uniform for Custer over the entire series. Yes, he was a general at one point. But this rank ended after he was mustered out of the volunteers. When he came back into the regular Army is was as a Lieutenant Colonel. During this time, the time with the 7th Cavalry, he would not have worn a general officer's rank on his shoulders. The costumer obviously either was told to save money or paid insufficient attention to detail. Viewers will likely never find out. Then too there is the detail of John Tunstall being portrayed as an American when he was British by birth and presumably by speech. So when I read all of the other historical inaccuracies listed in these reviews, I wonder what else was wrong and if so much was wrong, then what was the point of The American West. Clearly not historical accuracy. In fairness, I did learn some new facts, only to have them disputed on these pages. With so much doubt cast about the facts, the viewer can only speculate about the slant and underlying purpose of The American West. When they could have known better, why did they produce something that is fraught with controversy? Good entertainment, but incorrectly classified if The American West is labeled as a documentary.

I am an Englishman interested in the history of the American West, and over the last 50 years have read numerous factual accounts of the period. I have just seen the first episode of this series, and while visually interesting, it does seem to play fast and loose with historical facts. There is no mention of native-American Sioux chief Red Cloud, who was the only tribal chief to defeat the American army, resulting in a peace treaty and the creation of the Great Sioux Reservation. However I can see that this series has been made for the benefit of the masses, and not for any true historian of the period.