Glory vs. Gettysburg Movie critique

[tamaroa]

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.

Bill

[tamaroa]

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?

[connyankee]

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'.

CY

[connyankee]

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.

Ala History speaks

[longstreetlass]

Tamaroa,

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!)


LongstreetLass

[minie57]

Bill

Great Idea.

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.

[tamaroa]

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.

Bill

[traveller]

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.

[redeye]

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.

[skirmishgirl]

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...

All of this is just my opinion, however...

[blue_zouave]

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?

Zou

[jasonc]

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,

Jason Corlew

[jac]

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.....

[sean_harris]

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

[chuck71]

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.

[blue_zouave]

Chuck, that's an interesting story, do you have the name of the reference where you found it?

Zou

[chuck71]

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.