Gettysburg film 1993...If you could include 1-2 more regiments...

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Location
New Jersey
I'd definitely add the 1st MN if I could.

To be honest, I feel they are a perfect fit for an HBO mini-series, a la Band of Brothers. To follow them through the war would be an amazing story. I keep tweeting at Tom Hanks to do so, but to no avail :banghead:
Definitely!!! They are the perfect regiment to make a miniseries about.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
I liked the movie well enough but it was not at all what I had pictured Gettysburg to be. I also agree with others that the 20th Maine was more than a bit over played. But that's not what bugged me about the movie and there was some facets that were too hard to ignore. First and foremost did anyone else notice how spic 'n span clean everyone was? The perfect grooming of the beards was irksome because no one looks like that after days of hard marching, in wool clothing, in a Pennsylvania July sun! I also thought the acting was stiff and overly melodramatic; as a result the actors, in my opinion, lacked any real depth.

Worst of all, it was sanitary. There was no blood and guts. How can there be no blood and guts when the actual battle wracked up tens of thousands of casualties? Not to mention the hundreds of dead animals.

My vote for a great Civil War movie was Glory but they too were pretty clean soldiers!
 

bayonet

Corporal
Joined
Nov 7, 2012
I liked the movie well enough but it was not at all what I had pictured Gettysburg to be. I also agree with others that the 20th Maine was more than a bit over played. But that's not what bugged me about the movie and there was some facets that were too hard to ignore. First and foremost did anyone else notice how spic 'n span clean everyone was? The perfect grooming of the beards was irksome because no one looks like that after days of hard marching, in wool clothing, in a Pennsylvania July sun! I also thought the acting was stiff and overly melodramatic; as a result the actors, in my opinion, lacked any real depth.

Worst of all, it was sanitary. There was no blood and guts. How can there be no blood and guts when the actual battle wracked up tens of thousands of casualties? Not to mention the hundreds of dead animals.

My vote for a great Civil War movie was Glory but they too were pretty clean soldiers!
As far as "clean" the real Reenactors yes we were dirty (never wash the uniform, just dust it off). On some sets were makeup Girls that would powder your face with brown soot. BUT your right, some folks showed up just for a day to be an extra. They just stepped out of some shop in Gettysburg and brought all brand new duds. I had a close up with one of them Bozos and they did several cuts but there was not a speck of dirt on him, he wore knee high boots (better than Oates had!), and his hat looked like a cowboy hat with a round CS button on the front. Just after Me and 2 of by Buddies laughed that it will end up on the cutting room floor, and it did.

You mentioned dead animals? In the second movie there was not enough dead fake propped Federals in the background so they asked some of us to go out there and play dead. Well there was a prop of a dead horse. So I laid on top of it and pointed my rear end at the camera. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
I liked the movie well enough but it was not at all what I had pictured Gettysburg to be. I also agree with others that the 20th Maine was more than a bit over played. But that's not what bugged me about the movie and there was some facets that were too hard to ignore. First and foremost did anyone else notice how spic 'n span clean everyone was? The perfect grooming of the beards was irksome because no one looks like that after days of hard marching, in wool clothing, in a Pennsylvania July sun! I also thought the acting was stiff and overly melodramatic; as a result the actors, in my opinion, lacked any real depth.

Worst of all, it was sanitary. There was no blood and guts. How can there be no blood and guts when the actual battle wracked up tens of thousands of casualties? Not to mention the hundreds of dead animals.

My vote for a great Civil War movie was Glory but they too were pretty clean soldiers!
I agree with the “sanitary” comment. Perhaps this is because the production was originally meant for TV? That is one thing Glory and some other films get right. War isn’t bands playing and the glorification of violence as seen in the Gettysburg film. War is terrible, brutal, hard. An accurate depiction of a CW battle should have folks stomachs turning, they should feel disturbed. War is devastating to those involved and the communities and countries affected. Gettysburg whitewashed this.
 

Trooper "D"

Private
Joined
May 20, 2018
I agree with the “sanitary” comment. Perhaps this is because the production was originally meant for TV? That is one thing Glory and some other films get right. War isn’t bands playing and the glorification of violence as seen in the Gettysburg film. War is terrible, brutal, hard. An accurate depiction of a CW battle should have folks stomachs turning, they should feel disturbed. War is devastating to those involved and the communities and countries affected. Gettysburg whitewashed this.
Of all battles to sanitize. This is the battle that resulted in that one guy getting his guts blown and one hand blown off. Rib cage exposed and severed hand laying next to him.
I think reenactments sometimes miss that mark also.
 
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
As far as "clean" the real Reenactors yes we were dirty (never wash the uniform, just dust it off). On some sets were makeup Girls that would powder your face with brown soot. BUT your right, some folks showed up just for a day to be an extra. They just stepped out of some shop in Gettysburg and brought all brand new duds. I had a close up with one of them Bozos and they did several cuts but there was not a speck of dirt on him, he wore knee high boots (better than Oates had!), and his hat looked like a cowboy hat with a round CS button on the front. Just after Me and 2 of by Buddies laughed that it will end up on the cutting room floor, and it did.

You mentioned dead animals? In the second movie there was not enough dead fake propped Federals in the background so they asked some of us to go out there and play dead. Well there was a prop of a dead horse. So I laid on top of it and pointed my rear end at the camera. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
For me it was more than the cast of reenactors. I especially made note of the cleanliness of Lee and Stuart but especially Stuart. General Stuart and his cavalry was doing some hard riding around the armies reconnoitering and foraging. If I were Lee and he presented himself looking like he did in the movie he would have received more than a tongue lashing. Both could have not only been in dry cleaning commercials but also high end coiffeur commercials! It was that distracting and I agree with the comment regarding the movie being a whitewashed version of events.
 

johjess

Cadet
Joined
Aug 15, 2021
I think Gettysburg film 1993 was one of the best movies ever made. The only scene I would change is when Gen. Armistead believed in the darwin's theory because that is not true for he was a christian man who believed in the Holy Bible. I've searched for this thread I created but it seems to be gone so I want to renew it.

If you could, at that time, include one or two additional regiments on both sides what would they be?

For me it would be the 26th NC regiment who had over 800 men and officers and fought in the 1st day in Heth's division- Pettigrew's brigade and suffered heavily against 2 Iron Brigade regiments with each numbered 400 men and officers who had the advantage of being experienced and hard seasoned veterans and were hidden in the ridge while it would be the 26th NC's first major combat fight who ended up suffering 577 casualties including Col. Burgwyn Jr. who was mortally wounded. I would provide and cover a good bit for them like Col. Joshua Chamberlain and his 20th Maine regiment received.

The 2nd regiment I would include would be the 1st Minn. Regiment who went into battle with 262 men and officers who charged and fought with great courage and valor to buy time for Gen. Hancock to bring up reinforcements and ended with only 47 men left after the charge(outnumbered) by the Confederates. Then I would include both of these 2 regiments on the 3rd day of battle for both were involved in Pickett's charge on the 3rd and last day of the battle. The 26th NC regiment actually made it over the stonewall but withdrew with the attack failed. The 1st Minn. regiment who was placed in the center of the Federal line made one more final charge against the Confederates and helped restore the line that was momentarily broken by the Confederates.

The 26th NC regiment ended up with about 80 men left and the 1st Minn ended up with 40 men left. Wow...God bless our troops both today and in our american history and I believe more importantly that we americans should bless God!

How about you?
Hi, I too like the film I just finished watching it again. I really like Jeff Daniels portrayal of Chamberlain. I read recently that the director thought Daniels would not be a good fit because of his comedy work.
 

Trooper "D"

Private
Joined
May 20, 2018
I agree with the “sanitary” comment. Perhaps this is because the production was originally meant for TV? That is one thing Glory and some other films get right. War isn’t bands playing and the glorification of violence as seen in the Gettysburg film. War is terrible, brutal, hard. An accurate depiction of a CW battle should have folks stomachs turning, they should feel disturbed. War is devastating to those involved and the communities and countries affected. Gettysburg whitewashed this.
1864 the European mini series about Germany and Sweden warring has some good fighting scenes. One guy gets blown through the air from an artillery shell and lands on the Chavoux De Fries. Stuck! I haven t seen the entire film series so their might be more gems. Nice earthworks also.
 

SgtDarby8OVI

Private
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
The Antietam scene in Glory was notable for some pretty graphic carnage, including the exploding head that spatters Shaw with gore. That movie was rated R as a result of that realism, thus preventing younger audiences from seeing what was otherwise an inspiring and valuable history lesson (until the edited version ended up on TV). Turner and company clearly wanted to reach a PG audience regardless of the way the films were distributed. I would argue that the most graphic "wow" moment in Gettysburg is the canister shot that blows back a crowd of charging rebels in front of the wall. The scenes of canister hitting the fence and blasting both men and fence rails is the other somewhat realistic portrayal of close range artillery's effect. The one-armed soldier asking for permission to go to the rear during the Fredericksburg scene in G & G is also an attempt to insert some realism into otherwise sanitized combat scenes. Having stunt men blown into the air is strictly Hollywood, since actual artillery burst would like send body parts, not whole guys, flying.

Ultimately, the debate is between graphic realism and the ability to reach a wider audience. If you are Spielberg you can do both; otherwise, its usually wiser to aim for that PG level of violence to make it more accessible.
 

LCYingling3rd

Private
Joined
Apr 25, 2021
Excellent discussion. I have to agree that they must have been limited by the story as written in the book. It was a movie based on a historical novel and not the history itself. We can want the history told, but that is a separate story. He didn't write in detail about Culp's Hill or many other aspects of the battle, so they were constrained by that. Although, I did hear that some of the living historians "corrected" some historical inaccuracies of the book? Maybe some of you could verify that. I also heard that the scene where the soldiers were cheering Lee as he rode past them was totally impromptu and was added to the film because it was just cool and inspirational. I heard Sheen was shocked when it happened spontaneously.

As far as it being too sanitary. I agree yet also understand the point that it effects the movie ratings. I still can't get over Longstreet's beard...but that's small stuff. In general I thought the uniforms were pretty decent and I think the living historians did as much as they could to create as much realism as possible. I believe it was better because of the living historians; as opposed to them just hiring extras and outfitting them. I think we have to recognize that the book was, as Gary Gallagher has pointed out, a reconciliationist view of history. I believe it tried to show a war of Americans fighting Americans without delving too much into the actual differences between them. Yes, slavery is mentioned and States Rights are mentioned, however, it did focus on how these were all Americans. It certainly did not show the thousands of slaves that were the teamsters, cooks, and laborers in the Confederate ranks. The book was the book and they had to follow it to a greater extent.

That being said, they might have been able to "add" to the book a bit. I would have liked to see a bit more of Culp's Hill. No, it might not have furthered the story, as was pointed out, but it would have been nice. I like the Wesley Culp of the 2nd VA Infantry suggestion. That is a fascinating side story that could have brought Culp's Hill in a little, and would have been an interesting brief addition. I would also have liked to see Patrick O'Rorke and the 140th NY helping to save the day on Little Roundtop as the 16th MI got flanked...but that wasn't in the book and would have interfered with the theme that the 20th ME saved the day. (it would have been nice to see a little of how the sharpshooters and Co. B of the 20th ME helped further the rout as well...but, oh well) I also like the idea of a bit more focus on the Philadelphia Brigade during the July 3rd Charge. Again, that's not the focus of the book. If it was just a history movie, there could have been a lot more.

Great thread. I am loving the living historian anecdotes. Fascinating stories. I talked to the couple who owned the Cashtown Inn when the movie was filmed and their stories were excellent. Sam Elliot stayed with them and they said he called his mother every night and was a wonderful person. They also talked about how the Hollywood magicians transformed their property to simulate the painting they had on their wall. I can remember if they had the Dale Gallon or Mort Kunstler painting of the Inn.
 

Trooper "D"

Private
Joined
May 20, 2018
The Antietam scene in Glory was notable for some pretty graphic carnage, including the exploding head that spatters Shaw with gore. That movie was rated R as a result of that realism, thus preventing younger audiences from seeing what was otherwise an inspiring and valuable history lesson (until the edited version ended up on TV). Turner and company clearly wanted to reach a PG audience regardless of the way the films were distributed. I would argue that the most graphic "wow" moment in Gettysburg is the canister shot that blows back a crowd of charging rebels in front of the wall. The scenes of canister hitting the fence and blasting both men and fence rails is the other somewhat realistic portrayal of close range artillery's effect. The one-armed soldier asking for permission to go to the rear during the Fredericksburg scene in G & G is also an attempt to insert some realism into otherwise sanitized combat scenes. Having stunt men blown into the air is strictly Hollywood, since actual artillery burst would like send body parts, not whole guys, flying.

Ultimately, the debate is between graphic realism and the ability to reach a wider audience. If you are Spielberg you can do both; otherwise, its usually wiser to aim for that PG level of violence to make it more accessible.
Its a film not a History lesson.
 

SgtDarby8OVI

Private
Joined
Jun 30, 2021
Its a film not a History lesson.
In the case of "Glory," the film served to educate a vast segment of the public on the origins and existence of Black military units during the Civil War. The producers, directors, and studio heads were well-aware that the story they were telling was one that had profound implications on the way many folks would think about the connection between the war to restore the Union and the one to abolish slavery. The film and the accompanying publicity (including a Dan Rather narrated "Making of Glory") attested to its self-awareness as a vessel for education as well as entertainment. This film, combined with the Ken Burns' series, generated an unprecedented interest in the war, increased visitation to battlefield sites, and ballooned the number of reenactors to the highest numbers ever. It also ushered in a discussion that questioned the Lost Cause narrative that still drives many people's understanding of the war and its meaning. Indeed, "Gettysburg" (ironically, a veritable homage to the Lost Cause) would have never been made if not for the momentum sparked by "Glory" in telling Civil War stories based on real people and events. If all that does not constitute a history lesson, I don't know what does.
 

James N.

Colonel
Forum Host
Annual Winner
Featured Book Reviewer
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Feb 23, 2013
Location
East Texas
Gee, what could have tipped us off about you and the 33rd VA?
Didn't the 33rd VA wear blue uniforms at first Manassas?
That, plus the oblique angle they approached out of the woods from, is what allowed them to shoot down the gunners and most of the horses of the section of Griffin's guns nearest them. They were one of the Shenandoah Valley regiments of the Stonewall Brigade.
 

CowCavalry

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 17, 2017
My last sentence want necessary and I apologize for writing it. I didn't mean to be so harsh. Its just that people havevevery right to contemplate this film and what could have been better. The acting could have been better but some really stuck out like the aforementioned Sheen and Richard playing Armistead as well as Buford's and Hancock's portrayals off the top of my head. Great actors with a iffy script can only do so much though. Great acted scenes in a high school play wont raise the level of the entire play either.
Once again, sorry for that last sentence. I didn't mean to be a jerk and it wasn't funny or light upon rereading it.
I have never seen the movie as I refuse to watch it based on the casting of Sheen as Robert E. Lee. Tommy Lee Jones should have been in that role.
 

Trooper "D"

Private
Joined
May 20, 2018
That, plus the oblique angle they approached out of the woods from, is what allowed them to shoot down the gunners and most of the horses of the section of Griffin's guns nearest them. They were one of the Shenandoah Valley regiments of the Stonewall Brigade.
****, I knew I could count on you for details. Thanks Mate!
 
Top