Never Far From Dixie (a Western Short Film)

Northern California, 1867.
The Marshal Ed Dillinger is escorting his black prisoner to Fort Baker for him to be judged and hung. He makes a stop for water and supplie at the cabin of the Old Leigh Williamson, a former confederate soldier who went in exile after the War.
When he sees an ex-slave in his land, the Old Leigh Williamson start to remember the time when he was riding for Dixie...
Cast: Maarten Swaan, Richard Felix and Carl Chambers
Written and directed buy Valentin Moulias
This short film was shoot in southern France with an only 4000€ budget by a crew of passionated and talented peoples who worked hard during 3 long years to give you this film. We all hope you'll enjoy it.

[@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen]

The conversation from about 10:30 to 17:00 was really interesting. Parts of it don't have the ring of truth, but I applaud the filmmakers for giving a perspective we don't usually hear in films/videos like this.

[@asc_missions3080]

By "ring of truth" you mean that it's different from what you've been told? Think about that.

[@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen]

@@asc_missions3080 What would make you think that was what I meant, ASC? I specifically said "a perspective we don't usually hear." Do you not see that that suggests that I accept and value the things he is saying that are different from "what I've been told"? Think about that. I listened to that conversation again, and to be honest I'm not sure what it was I found lacking the ring of truth five months ago. I suspect it has to do with his seemingly heartfelt speech at the fireside in the context of other things he said or did in the rest of the story. I will say this: At some points he paints himself as almost a benevolent protector of the slaves; and then at other points he makes his disdain and contempt for them explicit. In other words, his own tone in one place contradicts his words in another. Bottom line: It sounds like he's trying real hard to justify the unjustifiable. He is lying to himself, so how can we know what parts of what comes out of his mouth we should believe?

[@asc_missions3080]

@@KZbinallowedmynametobestolen I expected that when you said parts don't have the ring of truth and then indirectly referenced what we usually do hear (the war was about slavery and southerners only fought to keep their slaves), that you meant this was what didn't have the ring of truth. HOWever, your clarification pushed that aside, raising the question of whether the man is contradicting himself. I don't think so. The story develops piecemeal and a bit out of sequence, as often happens in conversation. For me as a lifelong debriefer and counselor, used to sorting out what a confounded person is trying to say, I saw it fall together thusly: He didn't fight to keep his slaves because he had freed them 2 years prior. He did that because his beloved idealistic new Northern wife convinced him to trust them to be able to take care of themselves. He points out along the way that there were far more slaves than whites in the south, implying a hidden danger his wife couldn't see and that he didn't consider. He tells how so many former slaves were impressed into the Northern Army and were involved in the burning of the South. He was gone fighting somewhere else when they came through his place; he came home to his find his horrifically battered and multiply-raped wife hanging from a tree and his son burned to death in the barn. He blames himself (and secretly, his naive and unfortunate wife) for misplacing trust in those former slaves' future behavior, he hates them for betraying that trust, and he has all the proof he needs for why he will never make that mistake again. So he demands they stay away from him and his, and he kills them at the first sign of trouble. It's a typical traumatic stress "solution".

[@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen]

@@asc_missions3080 Wow, thanks for all of that, ASC. It sounds like you heard him a lot more clearly than I did.

[@phillbroaden7823]

I love this short movie I'm just miserable they didn't make it into a full movie

[@MisterY81b]

I liked this a lot. It offers another point of view.

[@stuartkcalvin]

Powerful, thanks.

[@mickolszewski2520]

FRANCELi BRAVOSki!

[@MomentsinTimeFilms]

Cast me in the next one . l play Tex in crypto heads the movie . This was great

[@bigwhale5840]

Excellent

[@kenlangham337]

Done mighty fine

[@andrewmorgan-williams2244]

Great film

[@laispupo56]

the audio quality is great

[@gravemarker]

One thing that bothers me at the beginning of this film. You have the Henry cocking sounds and the gun firing, but the hammer is always down. The hammer needs to be back for the gun to fire.

[@gravemarker]

@Steveknowles Knowles Just one of those things you notice when you are familiar with the gun. Plus you had the character at MCU for so long holding the same pose, one tends to see details like somebody holding a rifle on an opponent with the hammer down.

[@dennishein2812]

Noticed that on a lot of these new short or even full length westerns. They also make it look like a .44 rim fire kicks like a .45-70.

[@sokodad]

It’s a amateur film so there’s bound to be some errors but a hammer down means no one gets accidentally shot. Wouldn’t want another rouge gun like Alec Baldwin had shooting people.🤨

[@noway905]

@@sokodad rogue gun? You really mean rogue Alec Baldwin!

[@cheripalmer5264]

Kinda bitter sweet..

[@bolge7777]

I'd guess Williamson was telling more truths than most !!!!

[@normanbraslow7902]

The South simply did not have Henry rifles. If they did, they'd not use them. No source of ammo.

[@sokodad]

North and south used muzzleloaders. Very few in the north had Henry’s. Probably were rarely used because ammo was scare for both sides.

[@MomentsinTimeFilms]

10❤❤❤

[@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen]

I was looking to see who drew first at 20:06. I stopped the video right at the moment when the camera went to a wide shot at 20:07. And I saw the flash of gunfire from the Marshall's gun--while that gun was still pointing at the ground. But there's no way I would have caught that if I had been watching the video the way it's supposed to be watched, so I'll forgive it. I just thought it was kind of funny.

[@weissrw1]

Not bad, but who was the "no more masters" body? If that was a flash back, it was not at all clear. At least there was a horse (so many western shorts are so low budget --everybody walks).

[@paulinoregon7538]

the ending did not fit the character of the marshal. the man saved his life and he did nothing to save his. strange behavior for such a righteous law man. still a few good points in this short.

[@YouTubeallowedmynametobestolen]

Well, that man was clearly guilty of attempted murder when he hung the black man. I suppose the marshal could save his life--so that he could arrest him for attempted murder.

[@covidity114]

Marshall played by Swedish chef from the Muppets? I could barely last the 2 minutes of dialogue I endured. No no no!!!

[@andrewmorgan-williams2244]

America was full of French & Germans back then

[@stephenembrey883]

Nice set up, actions are not realistic at all but y'all have a really good start!

[@Phil.2-10]

This sheriff seems like Putin in disguise by accent.

[@johnzube3611]

Numerous spelling mistakes in the bottom line text of this move!- JZ.

[@johnlea8519]

I enjoyed the movie but for the very dark scenes where it was hard to see what was happening.

[@joeletaxi821]

The marshall sounded East European. The dialogue was at times 'On the nose' and excessive. Lots of lines should have been left unsaid. The main error with editing is in the dialogue. The camera should imitate the human eye. The camera should not be on the character when they begin speaking. They should be shown a second after they begin speaking. In the way people do this in real life. Somebody speaks and you turn your head. When not speaking, the actors should be doing something e.g. smoking, stoking the fire or whittling whatever. In terms of story, the ending was challenging. The marshall wouldn't save the life of the man that just saved his life but did want to save the life of a murdering prisoner. Other than that, I enjoyed the way the story developed. I thought the set design was great. The lighting and sound were adequate. At no point was I aware of the camera so that's a very good sign. Costume was also very good. I don't know much about guns but you had me convinced. To be clear, I enjoyed this film greatly. I love what you tried to do. I like the story and I especially warmed to the 'Rebel' character. I never bother with advice but I think you've got something so keep going and good luck.

[@davediamond7228]

made in spain

[@garypatrick7817]

The South didn’t have lever action rifles....only the North... Confederates only had muzzle loading single shots....

[@kaddachhaitam4183]

I agree with you

[@sett6970]

History disagrees with you. Jefferson Davis had bodyguards armed with the Henrys. 50 were purchased by the CSA only 200 by the union. The CSA captured a few more Henrys and Spencer rifles, ammo was the hard part to get. Both sides also had the sharps rifle and both sides had gatling gun or an analog. Production of ammo was the defining factor. The south didn't produce the rimfire ammo required for the Spencer. Britain supplied alot of the ammo, guns, cannon, and "machine" guns. Transportation from Europe was too slow to overcome the unions production capacity. Both sides allowed troops to purchase and use personal weapons. Some generals from both sides would personally contribute to supplies and arming their troops as well. The CSA also had extensive militia (partisan patriot) involvement. Bloody Bill Anderson and William Quantrill being the two best know militia leaders. They captured and used anything they could.

[@garypatrick7817]

Sett....thanks for your info...

[@billyblackmon4796]

@@sett6970 you are correct in factd at one point so many supplies rifles and uniforms had been taken by confederate raiders on union supply depots that the armies were almost equal in that area

[@snocamo154]

Probably stole the rifle off a dead Yankee or got it from someone who did.

[@marcojaimejardina6992]

I the Western genre

[@T37912]

Cardhu is not bourbon.

[@tacey505]

long live states rights

[@waldenbuilder]

Nice to see good acting in a Western short...most of these shorts are pathetic.

[@geronimo9706]

Great western! It´s not easy to find such one without any wokeness !

[@historyhunter5215]

Miscommunication is what drew the war to an end. A coward surrendered and everyone thought that was orders given.

[@dr.a.995]

History Hunter?

[@sokodad]

Interesting film. The use of language was probably true to the times but still hurt my ears. Not sure why they had to use a black man as a prisoner. Could’ve used him as a black marshals bringing a southern fugitive to justice. I guess that’s a theme for another film. Marshal in this film sounded more like he was from Louisiana or Cajun from Florida maybe.

[@sjalana1]

Who knows at those days about the truth wich side is the one that is innocent. 😢

[@nicosogrecos]

Well done and well acted, but not a enjoyable movie.

[@user-ko7uf3dl6c]

Well done and well acted, but not a enjoyable movie.. Cardhu is not bourbon..

[@ephramwalton]

Greed, hatred & tradition sounds just like today.

[@stephenembrey883]

You could make a good movie without the language. Where is everyone gone, that they think the Lords name in vain is cool to say in a movie or anywhere. Soon as I heard that I shut off your movie and I will not recommend it.

[@happyalyssa]

If that's the ONLY word you find offensive in this film, God would be ashamed. Love thy neighbor as thyself after all, right?

[@BudMasta]

Why are you judging someone else for their choice of words? Wouldn't that be against your religion?

[@PigeonDude]

Stephen, well clearly you shouldn’t be watching westerns.

[@raywalsh9152]

Well, God Damn. (Jesus Christ, grow a pair.) Oh, and Peter Pan and Santa Claus!

[@dillonbrown1454]

Disgusting

[@omecronrodneydheel349]

Dixie land….what a joke.

[@sjalana1]

You still sour.