This somewhat random thought is inspired by the ongoing “Best War Movies” thread, and by the fact that I finally got around to watching “Dunkirk” last night (great movie in every way, but it does require that you understand the historical and military context beforehand).

Has anyone else ever wondered why nobody so far has produced the Battle of the Little Bighorn as a real war movie?

As somewhat of an amateur student of the battle, I find most movie treatments over the past century (and there are a lot) to be more or less Custer-centered character studies, with the battle just providing the dramatic finale. “Son of the Morning Star” (TV rather than big screen) typifies the approach, even though it did try to add an Indian point-of-view.

I think a good director with an ensemble cast could create a terrific war movie.

Just like “Dunkirk” ignored Churchill, Gort, Dowding, Guderian, Hitler, Göring, in fact any decision makers except the fictional Kenneth Branagh navy officer, and just told the story from the ground up, one could largely ignore Custer, Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse.

Instead pick a few characters among Custer’s battalion, the tribes, Reno’s and Benteen’s commands and in a 2-hour movie you can run with the battle almost in real time.

Anyway, just random musings. Considering how iconic the battle is, it’s surprising how ****** its film treatments have been.