NF Martin Sheen or Robert Duvall

Non-Fiction

Sultana65

Private
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Location
Michigan
I've watched "Gettysburg" probably ten times since I acquired it on DVD a few years ago. I also own "Gods and Generals" on DVD but for some reason never got around to watching it until last evening, and then only the first half hour of it, I am planning to watch in increments while using my recumbent bike because it motivates me to get those workouts in.

Anyhoo...as you probably know, General Lee was played by Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg" but ten years later, Robert Duvall played him in G&G. For those of you who have seen both movies, which performance/impersonation did you prefer and Why?

Personally, I much preferred Robert Duvall in the role. He was much more soft spoken and kindly looking which are two qualities that seem to have defined General Lee based on what I've read and heard about him over the years. There was a warmth and softness in his expression that I see in photographs of General Lee, especially around the eyes, that Martin Sheen lacks. In fact, in watching Martin Sheen portray Lee I see an almost mean expression on his face and hard eyes, as opposed to Mr. Duvall and I just don't see a trace of that in General Lee .

As far as the acting, I've just seen a small part of G&G so far but it did heavily feature Mr. Duvall as General Lee and I think he also did a better job with the accent. Martin Sheen seemed at times to really exaggerate the Virginia accent and give it kind of a Foghorn Leghorn or Muskie Muskrat quality, although that may not have been his fault so much as that of the director or dialogue coach.

Anyway, for me it's Mr . Duvall, hands down.

Anyone else?
 
Last edited:
Sheen, absolutely. Sheen got the character, the dignity, the gravitas of the man down pat. We also know Lee had not been well, was tired, and far from at his best: Sheen expresses that wonderfully.

Duvall was OK, but he didn't have the dialog or dramatic situations to develop a real characterization. His Lee was a "bit part," no part of the movie was really "about him."

Many people's proclaimed dislike of Sheen's performance is based more on their perception of his politics rather than his acting. Which is both bigoted and silly.
 
Last edited:
What other people are saying. Duvall was given a 'poor' script to work with. That said he does an adequate job in the role but for me it is Sheen. Definitely Sheen.
Yes agree all the way! I love Duvall but think the fact that I saw Gettysburg a 100 times before G AND G my bias has been cemented! I hope the day is not over for quality CW movies on the big screen!!
 
Yes agree all the way! I love Duvall but think the fact that I saw Gettysburg a 100 times before G AND G my bias has been cemented! I hope the day is not over for quality CW movies on the big screen!!
I would not include Gods And Generals in the list of quality CW movies. I wouldn't even include it in the list of good movies, any genre.
 
Much of what makes me prefer Mr. Duvall in the role is his looks, as I mentioned before. He has the gentle expression and warm eyes of General Lee which to me is critical because this is a lot of what defined Lee as a man. Sheen has hard eyes and a frequently angry countenance that I couldn't reconcile with General Lee, regardless of how well he acted the part, and he did do a good job.

Also the hair. I hated a lot of the hair in "Gettysburg". It was brutally hot and humid and no one got a bath, much less a decent head washing throughout the duration, yet every time they showed Lee, Longstreet, or Pickett they all had big, fluffy hair and beards that looked like they were held in place with hairspray. I didn't see this so much with the men portraying the Union officers but they tended to have shorter hair that was hidden more by their headwear. In reality, wouldn't their hair have been plastered to their heads with sweat and their beards also matted with sweat and grime? I realize they didn't do the down and dirty fighting, but you try going three days outdoors in close to 90 degree heat and that kind of humidity in a hot wool uniform and no bath or shower and tell me how you would look, regardless of what kind of physical activity you were engaged in. Mr. Duvall's hair looked much more like the photographs that I've seen of General Lee, he didn't have big, puffy hair.

I realize that you could argue that it isn't about the looks but actually, somewhat it has to be. You have to be able to somewhat see the real person in the actor portraying him (or at least I do) for it to seem remotely real, and with Lee and Sheen I just can't.
 
To me, Duvall was a better Lee, but Sheen was in a much better movie. (I love Stephen Lang, but life is too short to try to sit through Gods and Generals again.) Sheen's performance doesn't bother me as much as it did, but I think he's seriously miscast and trying to do the best he can with it. His posture, especially on horseback, is atrocious. Of course, he's not the only one guilty of that in the movie.
 
Last edited:

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top