Sam Elliott playing Robert E Lee … say what?!

PeterT

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 29, 2015
Messages
3,090
Location
Melbourne Australia
So I watched the Academy Awards today (… not all of it!) and hoping that Sam Elliott would win Best Supporting Actor for A Star Is Born. He didn't. His first nomination ever.

However, I wanted to check up something about Sam and found this little gem on the internet (I wasn't aware he has been married to Katherine Ross for about 35 years!).

"At first, Elliott was meant to take up the role of Robert E. Lee in Gettysburg. However, it was reported that someone in the cast said they’ll leave the project if he plays the part. This, however, did not affect Elliott who found the role of Brigadier General John Buford more fascinating."

Who was the cast member that found working with Sam in the key role of Lee just too much? Could have been several I guess. At least his facial hair was real :D.

I can't imagine Elliott playing anyone in that movie other than Buford. I'm trying to, but just can't. No wonder he found the Buford role more interesting, cos it just is.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Robtweb1

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Apr 20, 2011
Messages
3,010
Location
Grand Junction, TN
I think everyone was in the right place. Sheen did a magnificent job as Lee, particularly with his own political views. I had a friend who was an extra in the movie and he told me that when they weren't filming, Sheen was leading demonstrations for whatever issue he was into at the time.
 

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,559
Location
Lexington, SC
I think everyone was in the right place. Sheen did a magnificent job as Lee, particularly with his own political views. I had a friend who was an extra in the movie and he told me that when they weren't filming, Sheen was leading demonstrations for whatever issue he was into at the time.
Or sitting down at the Farnsworth house with Elliot and Berenger. From what I’ve been told. The Farnsworth House had become a favorite watering hole for cast and crew. It would have been awesome to have been in town during the filming of the movie.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 3, 2017
Messages
9,899
Location
Chicagoland
So I watched the Academy Awards today (… not all of it!) and hoping that Sam Elliott would win Best Supporting Actor for A Star Is Born. He didn't. His first nomination ever.

However, I wanted to check up something about Sam and found this little gem on the internet (I wasn't aware he has been married to Katherine Ross for about 35 years!).

"At first, Elliott was meant to take up the role of Robert E. Lee in Gettysburg. However, it was reported that someone in the cast said they’ll leave the project if he plays the part. This, however, did not affect Elliott who found the role of Brigadier General John Buford more fascinating."

Who was the cast member that found working with Sam in the key role of Lee just too much? Could have been several I guess. At least his facial hair was real :D.

I can't imagine Elliott playing anyone in that movie other than Buford. I'm trying to, but just can't. No wonder he found the Buford role more interesting, cos it just is.
Who in that cast at that time would have had veto power over another cast member? Berenger? IMHO there were only two cast members who were irreplaceable - Sam Elliot and Jeff Daniels. They were the only actors who fit their roles perfectly. There were multiple actors who would have been as good or better than all the others who actually acted in that movie. Just look at the miscasts - Brian Mallon is a pint-sized Hancock; Patrick Gorman was about 20 years too old to play Hood; George Lazenby? c'mon!; Lang was okay as Pickett but he should have switched off with Richard Jordan - shoulda been Lang as Armistead and Jordan as Pickett.
 

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,559
Location
Lexington, SC
Who in that cast at that time would have had veto power over another cast member? Berenger? IMHO there were only two cast members who were irreplaceable - Sam Elliot and Jeff Daniels. They were the only actors who fit their roles perfectly. There were multiple actors who would have been as good or better than all the others who actually acted in that movie. Just look at the miscasts - Brian Mallon is a pint-sized Hancock; Patrick Gorman was about 20 years too old to play Hood; George Lazenby? c'mon!; Lang was okay as Pickett but he should have switched off with Richard Jordan - shoulda been Lang as Armistead and Jordan as Pickett.
I’d add Berenger to that short list. It would be pretty hard to find a better Longstreet. At least I’ve never seen him portrayed better.
 

John Hartwell

Major
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
8,065
Location
Central Massachusetts
Elliot could have risen to any role in that movie.
Sorry, but no amount of talent can save a miscast role. Ever see the 1956 film "The Conqueror" with big, hulking John Wayne as as Genghis Khan? Even with squinty-eye makeup The Duke couldn't pull it off!
the_conqueror_wayne_5.png
 
Last edited:

War Horse

Captain
Forum Host
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
6,559
Location
Lexington, SC


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top