I think Tassie's idea was a terrific one, so lets start a thread on the two movies and our thoughts pro and con.
Personally, I like both movies very much with Gettysburg edging out Glory. The movies in my opinion look at the war from two different angles so if you like one you may not care for the other.
Gettysburg concentrated on the commanders of the Gettysburg campaign. Some say that is one of its faults. I on the other hand enjoyed that thrust. While I did not agree with the sympathetic portrayal of Longstreet (sorry there LL), I loved Jeff Daniels portrayal of Chamberlain. Having been a re-enactor with the eleventh Virginia I of course like Kemper's character. I just thought all in all it was an excellent movie, the charge up the rise to cemetery hill was great.
Glory, I have mixed feelings about. The thrust of the movie was different, it showed the life of the common soldier with the added dimension of the soldiers being black. In most cases during the movie though, I think you could have substituted white soldiers for black and still have an accurate portrayal of enlisted life.
I absolutely loved the movie when it first came out. I think the final half hour of the movie is the best ever filmed. It was a magnificent assault.
Now here is where I have problems. Shortly, after I saw the movie, we had a guest speaker at our Civil War Round Table. She was the great grand niece of Robert Gould Shaw. Now here is where things started to fall apart for me. During her presentation of her famous ancestor's life we learned a number of things.
1) Shaw refused the offer of the command of the 54th at first. His mother a well known abolitionist of the time, pressured him into taking command of the unit.
2) Initially, he was not an abolitionist or was he in favor of black troops. It was only after his mother forced him into the position, when he realized that blacks were actually human beings and could perform as well as any white troops.
3) remember that great scene where after they are all trained and they go off to war where the whole town is cheering them on. His descendant said in real life that most of the people turned their backs to them as they left town.
But the thing that really got my goat so to speak was the last scene. Remember when the Confederates were burying the troops in the trenches? At the time I will confess ignorance of this but in the end, I looked it up in the official records. Edward Hallowell was the XO of the regiment. In his OFFICIAL report, he stated that nine men were killed, one hundred and forty seven or so were wounded with a hundred missing. I then looked up the commander of the fort whose name I believe was Taliferro. he said that he buried 600 men. Well if only 9 were killed and he buried 600 men then 591 were white troops. How many white troops did you see in the trenches at the movies? Later on about 2 dozen of the 54th's wounded died from their wounds.
I still love the movie though, I still think it has a heroic ending but the political correctness thrown in there at the very end leaves a bad taste in my mouth. So what do you all think?
Oh and one last thing. During the movie, I noticed that the ocean was on the wrong side when they were forming up for the attack. They attacked from the south in the actual battle which would have placed the ocean on the right.
I reread my post and realized it needs clarification. Since Mike won't let me edit it, I have to repost here Gettysburg is my opinion is about Generals and strategy and less about the soldier. Glory is more about the soldier at he unit level. Some people i have talked to about Gettysburg, don't like it because the common soldier is not emphasized except in little vignettes here and there. So basically you have two movies approaching the C.W. from different angles. Does that make a difference to anyone?
Opinions, I guess, are like noses-everybody has one.
Gettysburg Movie (pro): See it, by all means - especially if you intend on visiting the battlefield.
The movie looks at the battle through the eyes of Joshua ("don't call me Lawrence") Chamberlain, and James Longstreet. While I was disappointed, at times, I think the movie depicts exactly what Michael Sharra intended-in his book, "Killer Angels", so keep that in mind.
Does it cover the complete battle? Heck no! It's almost 4 hours long, too. But I'm amazed that it did cover such detail as Buford calling out for Calef's Battery and the fact that Richard Garnett was wounded by his horse and couldn't walk. Also, the Confederate Stainless Banner (2nd Official Flag) was appropriate for the time period.
Battle for Little Round Top is splendid.
Pickett-Pedigrew Charge: Awesome representation!
Martin Sheen - a terrific actor who had but three weeks to study the role of General Lee. I don't think he did so bad. I don't think of him very highly because of his modern day political views, but I think he did ok portraying R.L. Lee. My 1st choice was Robert Duval, and we shall see how he does in "Gods and Generals."
Gettysburg Movie (con): The overstated - bad, beards; deplorable and silly.
Plump, well-fed Confederates - "Howdy, stranger, where you headed?" Referred to by reenactors as, "Santa Claus." Pssst...to reenactors: Don't be afraid to jump in there and do it right, darnit! Hollywood kills, everytime, and complaining is an easy thing to do.
Glory: I cried during this movie 'n it ain't so bad to do that either. Historically accurate? Maybe not, but I think that anything we can do to emplore people of our age to be aware of our heritage is a plus.
Between Ken Burns and these two movies, I think it is accurate to say that visitation to Gettysburg is up to almost 2 million visitors per year, and general interest in the issues and the war are up remarkably. It sure got me goin'.
As a sidenote to the movie, "Gettysburg" - "Buster" Kilrain is a ficticious character. This is straight from the horse's mouth-Jeff Sharra, whom I asked outright at a book-signing. "Buster", superbly played by actor Kevin Conway, was a product of Michael Sharra's immagination-perhaps even Michael, himself.
Andrew Tosier, however, was a real person - the color bearer of the 20th Maine. He received the Nation's highest honor- the Medal of Honor, for defending Little Round Top. Also, the Merrill brothers ("we like to fight standing up") are both documented as having been killed at LRT.
I cannot really explain why I like Longstreet so much. I have fewer qualms about character flaws than other people, I suppose. Few people are like Abe Lincoln, who had a perfected character. (No one will every change my mind on that - don't even try.) R.E. Lee, too, may have had a perfect character.
Anyway, I prefer "Gettysburg" over "Glory." "Glory" for me is like watching a holocaust movie. I cannot take too much of watching one type of person being persecuted; but "Gettysburg," I can watch over and over, and I do.
These two movies, as someone mentioned above, are very different in orientation, though. "Gettysburg" is just plain, great, epic- movie stuff. How about that soundtrack? (We just installed surround-sound, and those tin cups clanking as the infantry walks past are really loud!)
As for the two, I pick Gettysburg over Glory. Though Glory did a lot to raise our Nation's awreness about the CW. I thought it wasn't as good at portraying the real events.
Gettysburg did a much better job of this especially considering that they did this on location.
In the Acting part, The performances of Danzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Matthew Broderick was better then that of the G'burg cast. However G'burg has some excellent performances by Jeff Daniels and Richard Jordan now if they could have done something with that lousy makeup.
What also helped was the use of reenactors though seeing Confederates that looked like they ate a cow kinda ruined the hardscrabble image of the Reb army that I had learned through the years. I hope Gods and Generals is a step up on this aspect.
Jon,
To be honest, I didn't care for Gettysburg when it first came out. When I saw the movie, I was bitterly disappointed that they didn't do the Rail Road cut and Culps hill. the 95th NYV's were from my county so I had hoped to see them portrayed at the cut. It wasn't til later that I realized the movie was based on a work of historical fiction so I kind forgave everybody. the movie has a terrific musical score which i blast everywhere I go.
I found both movies entertaining of course. Gettysburg seemed more like a dramatic documentary to me. I think it was hard to follow if you didn't know something about the main characters. Glory was probably more of an entertaining movie for most people. My wife seemed to enjoy Glory, but she couldn't seem to get into Gettysburg. That's probably because she's not into the Civil War. (I more than make up for her lack of interest.) I also enjoyed Glory but was disapointed with the follow-up. I felt that the acting and effects were better in Glory, although I must have enjoyed Gettysburg because I have watched it more times than any other movie.
I haven't watched "Glory" in quite a while, so while I get out the tape, here's my two cents on "Gettysburg" not being a soldiers' movie. Despite this, and despite the defects and the fact that some parts are really hard to understand for a novice (probably because heavily edited - I have an eye on the DVD), I just got swept up in the action when I watched it. For me it had a strong emotional impact; I took care of the intellectual part later, getting documented to fill up the blanks.
Example. Another one of my favourite war movies, "Saving Private Ryan", though flawed itself, is a soldiers' movie and I love it exactly for that. I use to identify more with everyday characters than with famous figures, because famous figures always leave a reserve, "was he/she really like that?" But with "Gettysburg" there is an almost childish appreciation, a "let's pretend" quality, something I've felt also reading "The Killer Angels". Shaara worked with the points of view so that one identifies with the famous figures, imagining their feelings as they are living those situations, and the movie kept that approach. You wonder what you would have done in their place, with that load of responsibilities and pressure. You watch (or read) the PPT charge and you're not just anybody, you're Armistead riding the storm. Or you're Chamberlain on LRT... For me it was oddly thrilling.
Since I brought it up, I should probably weigh in as well.
I will admit love for both films. I know they both have some historical inaccuracies, but that doesn't deter from the story for me. They are films after all, and not documentaries. If I want 100% true I'll read a book. I watch movies to be entertained.
Gettysburg is a good movie. It is, in my opinion, obvious it was filmed as a made-for-TV gig, and then got bumped up to real cinema when Ted Turner realized he wasn't the only war buff in the country. And the beards drive me CRAZY. But I like it anyway.
It is hard to follow if you don't know something about the battle and the folks in it. I know because when my husband saw it for the first time I realized how much more I know than I thought I did, when I had to explain much of it. (He's much better now!)
Glory. I cry every time I see that movie. I know there are many things which are "wrong" about the facts in the film. But what they changed make the film better for me. Of course they have to kill off a huge number of the black troops at the end, or the movie doesn't have the same impact. What would be the point of following the 54th Mass., only to see a bunch of dead white guys at the end? The whole point was that these guys went through hell just to fight, and ultimatley die, for their country. If you don't kill some of them at the end, it's all for naught. And you can't garner a lot of sympathy for Shaw if you make him out to be a racist mama's boy, who didn't want the job until someone made him take it. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he was a "bad" person. But you see where I'm going with this.
Here's the new question, however. A few months ago we were watching TV, and the Three Stooges came on. I'm not a fan and we were going to change the channel, but then we found out it was a Civil War bit. So we watch about five minutes of it. What was impressive was the uniforms. I'm so used to older stuff being guys in polyester hot pants, that the Stooges had me calling my dad, saying "Hey turn this on!" I don't know who did their wardrobe, but they looked **** good, down to the shoes...
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Gettysburg is my opinion is about Generals and strategy and less about the soldier. Glory is more about the soldier at he unit level. Some people i have talked to about Gettysburg, don't like it because the common soldier is not emphasized except in little vignettes here and there. So basically you have two movies approaching the C.W. from different angles. Does that make a difference to anyone?
LongstreetLass
Linear Mode
