NF Irrelevant Gettysburg Scenes

[KianGaf]

Found this article.

"Buford's men holding back wave after wave of Confederate Infantry with their Spencer carbines is fiction. Company, Regimental, and Division ordnance records of the regiments under Buford show that his troopers were armed with Sharps, Burnsides, Merrills, Ballards, and Maynards."

Weapons at Gettysburg – The Spencer Repeating Rifle

For many years, students of the Battle of Gettysburg have sung the praises of the Spencer rifle and its contribution to the great Union victory. Numerous authors have suggested that it was the Spe…

npsgnmp.wordpress.com

 

[Llewellyn]

In the scene I think some soldiers fire what looked like a Springfield or other muzzle loader. What where Bufford's cavalry Equipped with ?

I understand that as the fighting progressed, some of the cavalrymen borrowed muskets, from 7th Wisconsin rings a bell, but can't check as I am out exercising my dogs.

 

[Llewellyn]

General John Buford’s Report on His Cavalry’s Action at Gettysburg – Page 2 – Iron Brigader

 

[infomanpa]

Gettysburg is a movie best viewed on a CRT television, preferably with a VHS recording. It's worth seeing on the big screen once, especially if you're a reenactor who can say "Hey - there's Ed!" or who has fond memories of the mega-events of the 125th, 135th cycle. Viewing it in hi-def is asking for disappointment because you can see every flaw. It's a much better movie if you accept going in that it has made-for-tv movie quality that's firmly rooted in the late 1980s, early 1990s tradition.

Much better movie in lo-res? Interesting perspective, but no thanks. I will always take the high definition resolution when given the option...no disappointment at all. Of course, Gettysburg was not a made-for-tv movie and was originally shown in movie theaters in HD.

 

[Irishtom29]

My initial enthusiasm has long since worn off and the more I watch the picture the less I like it. It has a general low rent, slip shod air about it and the reenactors used often seem to be posing. The writing and acting fails to capture important characters such as Hancock and Hood. Kemper and Armisted are pathetic.

People preach, make speeches and engage in meaningless conversations. Sam Elliot, a poor man's Ben Johnson, has two modes, hollering and grumbling. But he rides well. Buck Taylor has a nice turn as Gamble though. I liked the guy who played Alexander. I think Sheen was brilliant, best thing about the movie, and I'm confident it wasn't because of the direction. And despite the beard I think Berenger was pretty good too.

The battle scenes are stagey and static and lack tension and the sense that something very dangerous is going on.

The beards don't get any better either.

 

[7thWisconsin]

Much better movie in lo-res? Interesting perspective, but no thanks. I will always take the high definition resolution when given the option...no disappointment at all. Of course, Gettysburg was not a made-for-tv movie and was originally shown in movie theaters in HD.

Yep. Saw it first on a big screen myself. Of course, "film" was still a real thing then. I noticed how much better it looked on my tv sometime in the late 90s. The production value of the whole film isn't terribly high. It feels like a made-for-tv despite its big screen release. Hi def distracts me by letting me see every hair in an outrageous beard, or just how badly those mid-80s reenacting clothes drape.

 

[Scott K]

The scene where Longstreet, with cigar in hand, salutes Lee has always been the one thing that makes me chuckle about the film each time I watch it. Funny thing is that each time that scene approaches I think 'come on Jimmy you can do it, no cigar this time'

Good thing he wasn't drinking coffee!

 

[James N.]

Buford's cavalry dismounted to fight on the morning of the first day

In the scene I think some soldiers fire what looked like a Springfield or other muzzle loader. What where Bufford's cavalry Equipped with ?

They aren't dismounted cavalry - they're wearing sack coats with blue chevrons - not yellow-trimmed cavalry shell jackets - and firing muzzle-loading rifles, not the breech-loading carbines the Federal cavalry was armed with.

 

[James N.]

Much better movie in lo-res? Interesting perspective, but no thanks. I will always take the high definition resolution when given the option...no disappointment at all. Of course, Gettysburg was not a made-for-tv movie and was originally shown in movie theaters in HD.

Actually, it was. Filmed in the wake of some of Ted Turner's other Civil War-themed projects like Ironclads and Andersonville, that accounts for a lot of the slipshod aspects like makeup and even casting: other than Sheen most of the actors were far from box-office draws. Although a few like Berenger, Elliott, and Daniels were competent veterans they certainly weren't in the first rank of "stars." Supposedly, once the rushes were in Turner thought it was worth a try at a regular run in theaters, but once that was over it wound up for a time where it was always intended, on his TV network with the other potboilers.

 

[Irishtom29]

I was thinking about editing today and how important it is to a movie battle scene. I think the best action-battle sequence in the history of motion pictures is the Charge of the Light Brigade in the 1936 Warners picture "The Charge of the Light Brigade", directed by Michael Curtiz and edited by George Amy. And it's the editing that makes the sequence so exciting, giving it a feeling of desperation, speed, confusion and great danger.

Whereas the editing in "Gettysburg" is just so pedestrian. No excitement, no pace, no sense of peril. Leaden.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

The scene where Tom Chamberlain speaks to three Confederate prisoners, ("See you in hell, Billy Yank," etc.) based on Winslow Homer's painting "Prisoners From the Front" always strikes me as very effective, though the inspiration for the painting was an incident which took place a year later, at Petersburg.

Bondarchuk had done something very similar in 1970 in Waterloo, where some parts of the charge of the Scots Greys are an immaculate reconstruction of an 1881 painting by Elizabeth, Lady Butler. Her viewpoint was directly in front of the charging horses, and Bondarchuk managed to get his camera in a similar position.

There are a few movies where an actual incident captured by an artist or a camera is faithfully reproduced (raising Old Glory on Iwo Jima has been done a few times, for example.)

This post caused me to look up a bit of info on that charge of the Scots Greys at Waterloo.
That painting shows horses at the full gallop, but the standard info is that the Scots Greys went forward at the walk and then the canter, but the ground was too broken for them to achieve a gallop - aside from the rough ground, the path was clogged by soldiers who had gone forward, and either stopped or pushed back.
It is a great painting, though, and I'm going to go look at that movie Waterloo again.
Among other reasons, since I first saw it, I've acquired one of those great Model 1796 light cavalry swords, the model with the wide, heavy top, and a Dutch/Germanic military jaeger rifle that's just the right age for use that the time of that battle.

 

[Cavalier]

@Jeff in Ohio Are they originals? With only one exception, all the period weapons I have been able to come by are repos. But they are still fun.

I have read that about the charge of the Grays also. Waterloo is my least favorite Napoleonic battle, (my God father was French). I really like the movie though, inaccuracies not withstanding. I thought Steiger and Plummer were great. And really enjoyed Dan O'Herlihy as my favorite French Marshal, Ney. Any guy with a nickname like "The Bravest of the Brave" has got my vote.

John

 

[kholland]

More irrelevant was much of the annoying "'round the campfire" stuff involving Pickett, Kemper, Fremantle, etc, etc. Though that, too, served as comic relief. "On just which side of your family are you descended from a ape, George?"
And Harrison, the spy, coming to Longstreet asking to be given a musket is just silly.

Agreed. There were definitely scenes that did not seem to fit (or add to the story). And this one stuck out.

 

[thomas aagaard]

It feels like a made-for-tv despite its big screen release

It was made for TV... so that is no surprise.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

@Jeff in Ohio Are they originals? With only one exception, all the period weapons I have been able to come by are repos. But they are still fun.

I have read that about the charge of the Grays also. Waterloo is my least favorite Napoleonic battle, (my God father was French). I really like the movie though, inaccuracies not withstanding. I thought Steiger and Plummer were great. And really enjoyed Dan O'Herlihy as my favorite French Marshal, Ney. Any guy with a nickname like "The Bravest of the Brave" has got my vote.

John

Yes, they are originals.
I believe I have photos of the sword, and will post them here later. This model has an interesting history, and the idea of a sword that had a heavy point to add impact evidently came from designs such as the Tulwar designs of the middle east. The model 1796 light cavalry saber was widely used by several countries, and the one I have has no maker or proof-marks.

 

[Cavalier]

@Jeff in Ohio Thank you very much. Looking forward to the photos. And congratulations on your acquisitions.

John

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I did add my photos to the message, above.
Evidently, the British adopted this because they learned that few cavalrymen thrust a sword into an enemy, but they did swing their swords into the enemy. This sword had more weight at the end, and that added to the impact. At the time of use, writers claimed that this sword would separate head from neck, and limb from body with one stroke. Whether this is true, or not, this was the model that was in wide use for decades, and especially the Napoleonic Wars.
I think this model was chosen with the idea that a straight thrust through the body might be more lethal, but also meant you might lose your sword, and it was not the reflexive way to use a sword. A swing and slash was more natural (especially when on horseback), and a deep cut would stop an enemy even if not kill him.

 

[Cavalier]

@Jeff in Ohio It's a nice piece I would be proud to own, and I like the photos.

John

 

[klongstreet]

Well, pvt Bucklin's role was to explain (none too accurately, as it turns out) the motives of the unwilling 'hot-heads' from the 2nd Maine. So, the scene wasn't really irrelevant. The other (Dan Burns, whose Preacher father "knows more fine cuss words than any man in Maine") was just a bit of comic relief, something to smile at.

More irrelevant was much of the annoying "'round the campfire" stuff involving Pickett, Kemper, Fremantle, etc, etc. Though that, too, served as comic relief. "On just which side of your family are you descended from a ape, George?"
And Harrison, the spy, coming to Longstreet asking to be given a musket is just silly.

I will add that I think the battle scenes were a good bit too long. And, just how many times do the first lines of Pickett's troops (seen from a variety of different angles) pass out of the woods and through the line of artillery? 3? 4? 5? But, I do understand: they spent so much money for all those people and all that footage that they wanted to use it somewhere.

But, lets face it, if any of those "irrelevant" scenes were removed, we'd miss them.

I have read that Harrison not only took part in the PPT charge but survived it, this scene i believe relates to that.

 

[klongstreet]

I was thinking about editing today and how important it is to a movie battle scene. I think the best action-battle sequence in the history of motion pictures is the Charge of the Light Brigade in the 1936 Warners picture "The Charge of the Light Brigade", directed by Michael Curtiz and edited by George Amy. And it's the editing that makes the sequence so exciting, giving it a feeling of desperation, speed, confusion and great danger.

Whereas the editing in "Gettysburg" is just so pedestrian. No excitement, no pace, no sense of peril. Leaden.

" The charge of the light brigade" was a great film, however it showed far more casualties than the actual charge, in fact only 17% of the 665 riders were casualties, not counting horses of course.