The cinema has always had a cavalier disregard for historical fact, and nowhere has this been more true than in its biopics of the famous men and women of the Old West, whether heroes or villains. This film, however, is perhaps the most egregious example I have seen of Hollywood's penchant for fictionalising and romanticising Western history. There was a late 19th-century outlaw named Belle Starr, a fairly obscure figure during her lifetime but turned into a "female Jesse James" by sensationalist writers after her death. This film, however, has almost nothing to do with her story. By contrast even the notoriously inaccurate "They Died with Their Boots On" about General Custer, also from 1941, and the almost equally inaccurate 1939 "Jesse James" with Tyrone Power seem like sober historical documentaries.
The action takes place in the years immediately following the end of the American Civil War. The film was obviously influenced by "Gone with the Wind", made two years earlier. In this version the young Belle Shirley is a Scarlett O'Hara figure, a fiery brunette Southern belle born into a wealthy plantation-owning family and a passionate supporter of the Southern cause. After her family home is burnt down by the villainous Yankees, Belle marries Sam Captain Starr, a dashing guerrilla leader trying to liberate the South from Yankee tyranny. There would be little point in trying to list all the goofs and historical inaccuracies in "Belle Starr"; it would be much easier to list the few things that it gets right. Indeed, even when the scriptwriters try to be accurate they inadvertently make matters worse by making the story even less plausible than it might otherwise have been.
The historical Belle Starr carried out most of her criminal activities in Texas and Oklahoma, but was originally a native of Missouri, and for some reason the film-makers decided to set their story in that state. Now a storyline like the one set out above might make some sort of sense if it had been set in, say, Alabama or South Carolina; it makes no sense at all when set in Missouri, a state which had comparatively few slaves and no real plantation economy. Indeed, it had only become a slave state in the first place because of a grubby compromise between pro- and anti- slavery factions in 1820, and it remained loyal to the Union throughout the Civil War. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Missourians would have flocked to the banner of Captain Starr as they are shown doing here.
There was long an unwritten convention in Hollywood, a convention dictated by the need to sell cinema tickets on both sides of the Mason/Dixon Line, that film-makers dealing with the Civil War era should not give offence to Southern feelings by pointing out such unpleasant truths as the evils of slavery or the fact that, because it sought to perpetuate those evils, the Confederate cause was a dishonourable one. This convention is observed in "Gone with the Wind", among other films, but "Belle Starr" goes a step further. Not only does it seek to avoid offending Southerners, it seeks to give quite gratuitous offence to Northerners.
The only representative of the Northern cause we see is Major Thomas Crail, a handsome, cultivated young officer who is quite happy both to accept Belle's hospitality in her elegant stately home and then, a week later, to burn that home to the ground while courteously explaining that this act of arson is merely carried out to further the interests of the US Government. His personal feelings, of course, have nothing to do with the matter. It is worth pointing out that the film was made in 1941, at a time when much of Europe had fallen under Nazi control. All over the continent handsome, cultivated young officers were either dining with the owners of elegant stately homes in occupied lands or burning those homes to the ground, dependent upon which course of action would better further the interests of the Third Reich. Their personal feelings, of course, had nothing to do with the matter.
Quite apart from this implied equation of the Yankees with the Nazis, the film is offensive in other ways. By the forties it was no longer acceptable to portray black Americans in the way in which they had been portrayed a quarter of a century earlier in "Birth of a Nation", but things had not really improved. The black characters in this film are no longer the violent, bestial savages of Griffith's film but are treated with patronising condescension as simple-minded, childlike folk who treat their white masters with exaggerated respect. They regard Belle after her death as a "legend", virtually as a saint, even though in her lifetime she was an ardent advocate of keeping them in servitude.
Seen purely as an adventure drama, in fact, the film is not a bad one; the acting and direction are of a reasonable standard, it is visually attractive and it has the great advantage of starring the incomparably beautiful Gene Tierney, the loveliest actress of the forties, as Belle. In the 21st century, however, films like this one cannot be judged on artistic merits alone. "Belle Starr" is a deeply dishonest film- not in the sense that it is less than faithful to historical fact, which in Hollywood is, at most, a venial sin, but in the sense that it contributes to a dishonest narrative of American history which seeks to excuse, even to justify, the cruelty and racism of the past. 4/10
The action takes place in the years immediately following the end of the American Civil War. The film was obviously influenced by "Gone with the Wind", made two years earlier. In this version the young Belle Shirley is a Scarlett O'Hara figure, a fiery brunette Southern belle born into a wealthy plantation-owning family and a passionate supporter of the Southern cause. After her family home is burnt down by the villainous Yankees, Belle marries Sam Captain Starr, a dashing guerrilla leader trying to liberate the South from Yankee tyranny. There would be little point in trying to list all the goofs and historical inaccuracies in "Belle Starr"; it would be much easier to list the few things that it gets right. Indeed, even when the scriptwriters try to be accurate they inadvertently make matters worse by making the story even less plausible than it might otherwise have been.
The historical Belle Starr carried out most of her criminal activities in Texas and Oklahoma, but was originally a native of Missouri, and for some reason the film-makers decided to set their story in that state. Now a storyline like the one set out above might make some sort of sense if it had been set in, say, Alabama or South Carolina; it makes no sense at all when set in Missouri, a state which had comparatively few slaves and no real plantation economy. Indeed, it had only become a slave state in the first place because of a grubby compromise between pro- and anti- slavery factions in 1820, and it remained loyal to the Union throughout the Civil War. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Missourians would have flocked to the banner of Captain Starr as they are shown doing here.
There was long an unwritten convention in Hollywood, a convention dictated by the need to sell cinema tickets on both sides of the Mason/Dixon Line, that film-makers dealing with the Civil War era should not give offence to Southern feelings by pointing out such unpleasant truths as the evils of slavery or the fact that, because it sought to perpetuate those evils, the Confederate cause was a dishonourable one. This convention is observed in "Gone with the Wind", among other films, but "Belle Starr" goes a step further. Not only does it seek to avoid offending Southerners, it seeks to give quite gratuitous offence to Northerners.
The only representative of the Northern cause we see is Major Thomas Crail, a handsome, cultivated young officer who is quite happy both to accept Belle's hospitality in her elegant stately home and then, a week later, to burn that home to the ground while courteously explaining that this act of arson is merely carried out to further the interests of the US Government. His personal feelings, of course, have nothing to do with the matter. It is worth pointing out that the film was made in 1941, at a time when much of Europe had fallen under Nazi control. All over the continent handsome, cultivated young officers were either dining with the owners of elegant stately homes in occupied lands or burning those homes to the ground, dependent upon which course of action would better further the interests of the Third Reich. Their personal feelings, of course, had nothing to do with the matter.
Quite apart from this implied equation of the Yankees with the Nazis, the film is offensive in other ways. By the forties it was no longer acceptable to portray black Americans in the way in which they had been portrayed a quarter of a century earlier in "Birth of a Nation", but things had not really improved. The black characters in this film are no longer the violent, bestial savages of Griffith's film but are treated with patronising condescension as simple-minded, childlike folk who treat their white masters with exaggerated respect. They regard Belle after her death as a "legend", virtually as a saint, even though in her lifetime she was an ardent advocate of keeping them in servitude.
Seen purely as an adventure drama, in fact, the film is not a bad one; the acting and direction are of a reasonable standard, it is visually attractive and it has the great advantage of starring the incomparably beautiful Gene Tierney, the loveliest actress of the forties, as Belle. In the 21st century, however, films like this one cannot be judged on artistic merits alone. "Belle Starr" is a deeply dishonest film- not in the sense that it is less than faithful to historical fact, which in Hollywood is, at most, a venial sin, but in the sense that it contributes to a dishonest narrative of American history which seeks to excuse, even to justify, the cruelty and racism of the past. 4/10