"PICKETT'S CHARGE" - Page 5

memphis · #41 10-27-2005, 06:49 AM

When I first saw the film was was dumfounded by a host of inaccuracies and omissions. One of the things that really annoyed me about the film was the lack of a scene about the fighting at the railroad cut the first day. One of my hometown units, the 95th New York, was heavily involved in the capture of the Confederate troops in the cut. Very soon thereafter, I realized it was based on a work of FICTION. Up to that point I had never heard of or read Killer Angels.

While there is a reference to Culps hill (Give me a regiment and I will Take that Hill...Many a good man will in the morning try to take that hill), there was no piece about it in the movie.

Then it started to come together. I do like the movie, but I resent that it is perceived to be reality by the general public. I would really like to see a film about Gettysburg that is 100% accurate. As a friend of mine would comment "It is what it is" Its a fictional piece about a portion of a real battle in the Civil War. In other words, there's no sense in getting in a tiff over it.

What I like to think is that if it got one more person interested enough in the war to research it, then it did its job.

VS on the belt plate · #42 10-27-2005, 03:46 PM

Not a movie...but maybe a 13 part documentary or something of that nature would work better to tell the story of Gettysburg.

There have been some neat 'Civil War Combat' shows....they have had The Wheatfield and other Gettysburg vignettes. They were well made. More Gettysburg stories need to be done..including the action on the first day.

VS..etc

mobile_96 · #43 10-27-2005, 05:09 PM

memphis (my birthplace)
{What I like to think is that if it got one more person interested enough in the war to research it, then it did its job.}
Indeed, this is the result. Between Ken Burn's Civil War, the movies-'Glory' and 'Gettysburg', a large influx of students of the war emerged. Even the movie 'Andersonville' may have helped add more. All though flawed, and there are detractors to them, Glory and Getts. have been praised by many in most of the cw groups I belong to.
The 13 part documentary would be great for the present students, but I wonder how many new people it would attract, due only to its length.
Chuck in IL.

nbforrest · #44 10-28-2005, 03:32 PM

What I like to think is that if it got one more person interested enough in the war to research it, then it did its job.

Sure, but sadly seeing a movie like Glory is the most people will look into a historical event. They can really influence the general public. I mean, can the average joe name another regiment in the Battery Wagner assault besides the 54th MA? I seriously doubt it.

Calicoboy · #45 10-28-2005, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by memphis

When I first saw the film was was dumfounded by a host of inaccuracies and omissions. One of the things that really annoyed me about the film was the lack of a scene about the fighting at the railroad cut the first day. One of my hometown units, the 95th New York, was heavily involved in the capture of the Confederate troops in the cut. Very soon thereafter, I realized it was based on a work of FICTION. Up to that point I had never heard of or read Killer Angels.

While there is a reference to Culps hill (Give me a regiment and I will Take that Hill...Many a good man will in the morning try to take that hill), there was no piece about it in the movie.

Then it started to come together. I do like the movie, but I resent that it is perceived to be reality by the general public. I would really like to see a film about Gettysburg that is 100% accurate. As a friend of mine would comment "It is what it is" Its a fictional piece about a portion of a real battle in the Civil War. In other words, there's no sense in getting in a tiff over it.

What I like to think is that if it got one more person interested enough in the war to research it, then it did its job.

You think the 95th got slighted. The movie didn't even give passing mention to the Iron Brigade. By the way...a big huzzah to the 95th. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the 6th Wisconsin at the railroad cut.

Calicoboy

Calicoboy · #46 10-28-2005, 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by memphis

When I first saw the film was was dumfounded by a host of inaccuracies and omissions. One of the things that really annoyed me about the film was the lack of a scene about the fighting at the railroad cut the first day. One of my hometown units, the 95th New York, was heavily involved in the capture of the Confederate troops in the cut. Very soon thereafter, I realized it was based on a work of FICTION. Up to that point I had never heard of or read Killer Angels.

While there is a reference to Culps hill (Give me a regiment and I will Take that Hill...Many a good man will in the morning try to take that hill), there was no piece about it in the movie.

Then it started to come together. I do like the movie, but I resent that it is perceived to be reality by the general public. I would really like to see a film about Gettysburg that is 100% accurate. As a friend of mine would comment "It is what it is" Its a fictional piece about a portion of a real battle in the Civil War. In other words, there's no sense in getting in a tiff over it.

What I like to think is that if it got one more person interested enough in the war to research it, then it did its job.

You think the 95th got slighted. The movie didn't even give passing mention to the Iron Brigade. By the way...a big huzzah to the 95th. They stood shoulder to shoulder with the 6th Wisconsin at the railroad cut.

Calicoboy

matthew mckeon · #47 10-28-2005, 07:37 PM

Movies are made to entertain and inspire. They can be great and say and show true things without being 100 percent accurate.

Glory is a case in point. The 54th was composed largely of men who had been free all their lives, not runaways. They had significant political backing from Massachusetts and so escaped the types of petty discrimination they suffered in the movie(denial of supplies and so forth), but other black soldiers did not. Other black soldiers did attend school and become literate during their service, as shown in the movie, but again in other regiments. The 54th's literacy level was similar to other Union regiments. Focusing in perfect accuracy on units other than the 54th would have given a false idea of the typical experience for black soldiers.

I also think the movie largely succeeds in human terms. The people(on the most part) seem like real people. The actual Shaw was a harder and more decisive officer then Matthew Broderick, but Broderick made the character work.

ole · #48 10-29-2005, 01:02 AM

Calicoboy:
There was one very brief mention (paraphrased) "The 1st Corps, and them black-hat fellas."

I'd want to see most of all three days, but there would be only a few who'd pay to sit through the minimum 12 hours it would take. No money in that.
Ole

matthew mckeon · #49 10-29-2005, 09:16 AM

There is a British series on PBS called "Battlefield" which deals with a WW2 battle, solely in military history terms in close detail(weapons, leaders of both sides etc.). Maybe an CW equivalent. Of course they have newsreels, and we would be using re enactors, but there must be enought stock footage of really good impressions....

But geared towards the serious student of the CW.

Ken Burns of course, is a classic. Although he shorts Culp's Hill too. Dang that Chamberlain!
I read a short book of essays by academics harshly criticizing him for his pro Confederate bias and short changing slavery. Burns wrote an reply at the end of the book, in which he says that his documentary drew some pro-Confederate protestors "who at least knew what they were protesting." hee hee

Is there a good book about Culp's Hill?

ole · #50 10-29-2005, 01:48 PM

Matthew:

Pfanz, "Culp's Hill & Cemetary Hill."