I will write more when I have time, because Zou can wax eloquent on the subject of movies!
Gettysburg: Saw it before I started reenacting, laughed at the part where Chamberlain said, "Ahem, hum, didn't mean to preach." "That's exactly what he meant," I told Mr. Zou. Also in Gettysburg, the shampooed and blow dried fluffy hair bothered me. Even two days in the field and I have Greasy Kid Stuff. And aagh, those noble bloodless battle scenes with swelling strings on the soundtrack!
Glory: Plays very fast and loose with the facts (for instance, the 54th had shoes and blue suits from the beginning!). Still a great movie, good characters and great battle scenes.
As for the 3 Stooges Civil War movie, I saw that one too... and weren't they Confederates?
Just found this website and it's great. I reckon I will use this as the spot for the all important first post of what I hope will be many welcomed by you fine folks here.
Gettysburg, I cannot say too many good things about. Only seen it a few times so I'll be quiet on the subject except for one thing. I don't care for Martin Sheen one bit. Not at all. And him as Lee didn't do well with me. Again it is important to note that I'm southern and we don't say anything about someone if it's not nice so I'll be quiet. Robert Duvall wanted that part and would have done great. Whats with this Gods and Generals I keep hearing about? What is it? Any info would be greatly appreciated.
Now onto glory. I don't know how many exact casualties and dead the regiment suffered at Wagner so I cannot comment on that. I found EXTREMELY interesting that a descendant of Col. Shaw said that he was not an abolitionist and that at his mother's urging he finally took the command. That is very much in contrast with every bit of documentation or article I've ever encountered. Usually it is said in scholastic circles that he turned down command for fear of failure and fear of them not being allowed to fight and so on but I always had my doubts on that as all academic historians have doubts on all matters.
The 54th was of course not the only black reg. at the time but throughout the remainder of the war they were by far the most literate and educated and disciplined. The movie only portrays those who were runaway slaves and uneducated except for the fact that Thomas was a boyhood friend of the Col. and Major Forbes. One thing I hated about that movie (it is important to note that I hate everything portrayed as historical when in fact it is totally wrong) is when Thomas is wounded he suddenly becomes this hardened battle scarred man who refused to go home and nurture his wounds when only months before he was crying like a child during the days of training. Also, Robert Shaw says he envies him for being able to sit by the fire and read Hawthorne. While Hawthorne was indeed writing at the time, he was not at all the literary figure he is today and one paper at the time wrote an article shortly before the war that called him destined for failure for a lack of literary talent. LIke most great writers, he did receive his following in great numbers until shortly before or after his death. It is true that most white regs. resented the 54th and on the march to the Battery at Wagner one soldiar called out from the silence to "give em hell 54th!" I love that fact.
Also the movie has underpinnings to me as trying to show that Shaw and Forbes and other whites in the movie were fighting to free the slaves which noone will ever make me believe. Of all the diaries and letters and things I've read of the everyday soldiar of that war, I've concluded that no soldiar on either side gave a **** about the slaves and that is truly sad.
The letters home are word for word from the original letters shaw actually sent home which i liked and his refusal at first of Col. Montgomery's order to burn Darien, GA, is somewhat accurate.
At point he is at hq's and says that rebel belongings shipped north with payment to parties unknown is illegal and could be reported to the war dept as an attempt to get a transfer would have been laughed at in reality. It most certainly not was illegal and was at times encouraged by Stanton. Other than that, I like the movie.
Both movies along with Ken Burns did wonders for interest in the war among our citizens. for that, I am a friend to both movies and the documentary but I cannot stand the mistakes. I know I know I know. Live with it, its hollywood is what you are all saying now but to a history major, I cannot let it go. <sigh>
I am to all,
your most obdt. and hmbl servnt,
I liked both movies, but my vote goes to Gettysburg. I thought a big part of Gettysburg was the 'feel' that it has, because of all the reenactors. The scenes of thousands of men-like the Pickett's charge scenes- add an element to Gettysburg that most Civil War movies can't duplicate.
The reenactors are too clean, too fat, and insufficiently ragged, but there's no substitute for the masses of men.....
Gettysburg, HMMM, I recall a well fed Confederate? Yes, I fondly remember a man of "Large" Stature! I believe he worked for the Commissary Corp in Richmond and was on a "Fact Finding" mission with the Army of Northern Virginia.
He stopped Harrison while preparing Spam Cush with cheese omelets' for the troops on the picket line!
He realized something was amis due to the fact Harrison smelled of Tavern Steak and Eggs a smell our "Hefty Friend of Refined Taste" new all to well in Richmond!
Well, the rest is history!
"At least the Richmond Commissary Corp were men of "Large, Healthy, Stature" after all he was not a fat Confederate! He was simply a "big boned" man.
Mary Chestnut
Jon Bower: In regards to your post of August 5th,
I agree that "Buster" Kilrain was fictitious.
However, in real life, his character was most like
a man named George Washington Buck, a private who
at an earlier time had been a sargeant. He was
busted down to private by a captain for a minor
infraction. During the defense of LRT, he was
mortally wounded. As he lay dying, Chamberlain
promoted him back to sargeant, saying "you die a
sargeant". Buck answered with "Tell my mother I
died facing the enemy", or words to that effect.
The modern terms of "buck private" and "buck
sargeant" originated from this.
Zou: The reference is "Through Blood and Fire at Gettysburg" by Gen. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. It is a small pamphlet highlighting Josh's and the Twentieth Maine's defense of LRT on July 2. I purchased mine in the summer of 1998, during my last visit. It is published by Stan Clark Military Books, 915 Fairview Avenue, Gettysburg, PA 17325, with a phone number of 717-337-1728.
The price was $4.95. But remember, this info is 4 years old that I just gave you. It could have changed by now. Anyway, the passage referred to is on page 20 in my book. That's all I can do for you at this time. Check it out. An interesting read. The only thing that is not mentioned is the "buck private" and "buck sargeant" situation I mentioned. I read that somewhere else, but just can't remember. Or I might have been in a conversation with another person who informed me of this.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
