Watch Gettysburg 1993
Renau Sheard
Jed, Thanks for a great review of a film that I consider the best civil war film out there. The level of realism in this film sets it so far apart from anything else that it's just amazing. And I love the fact they go through and discuss all the motivations for fighting -- something liberals generally no longer allow as now we're supposed to believe the only reason anyone fought was slavery.
Andrew - thanks for your kind words. I have long been a civil war enthusiast. I must give a lot of credit to my wife. Back in 1993, I attended opening night with my wife on my birthday. At four hours, she went "above and beyond the call."
Seriously, I'd hope the message of this movie is one that people of all political stripes could enjoy. As I mention, some of the soliloquies probably seem a touch unrealistic, but one could make that same argument about Shakespeare ;-) I do often wish this film could be "re-worked with modern CGI to give the viewer a better idea of what a battle involving 150,000 forces looks like.
Jed, In truth, I'm glad they haven't. CGI just doesn't work.
Look at how the real war looked with uneven lines, the disjointed uniforms with no two people really dressed the same except in the rarest of circumstances and the sense of chaos throughout. CGI loses all of that. You would get perfectly shaped squares of identical clones all moving perfectly at videogame speed. Not to mention that you know canonballs would suddenly set of mini-nuclear explosions.
It would be like adding a cartoon into the middle and it would wipe out the realism. I think you would be cautioning people -- see the original, not the cartoony remake.
Nice job Jed. I still remember the first few lines of the Gettysburg Address. I had to memorize and recite it in my English class in High School.
My favorite pro-American/patriotic film is Yankee Doodle Dandy. This clip is the routine of the same name as the movie.
Perhaps you are right. Best to not use it at all rather than badly. I would only consider it for a very broad satellite shot taken from high enough to take in the entire battlefield. I agree most effects look fake and are over-utilized, but I kind of remember I liked the look of 10,000 ships being launched Troy in an otherwise mediocre movie.
Excellent review, Jed! I have Gettysburg on tape at my house (VHS all the way, baby), and while I haven't watched it in a long time--honestly, the characters launching into quasi-Shakespearean speeches does grate on me a little--it does have a lot of wonderful qualities. (Armistead as a character was definitely over the top.)
Some years ago, I was at the Vicksburg battlefield, where they fired off a Civil War cannon--without the cannonball, of course. Even with my fingers in my ears, the blast was deafening. Waiting for an assault in the face of that 150-gun cannonade took a special kind of courage.
What do you think of Gettysburg as a battlefield today, incidentally? Because all around, it wasn't my favorite.
Andrew - on the effects thing, one of the greatest examples of what I'm thinking about actually occurred in Gone with the Wind. A long shot slowly zooms in on Miss Scarlett in the streets of Atlanta showing all the dead and wounded soldiers. Only about half were real actors, the rest were manequins. In today's technology with blu-ray, you could pause and easily pick out the dummies. But in real time, it only last a few seconds, but gives the viewer a better feel for the scope.
T-Rav; thanks ! have been to most of the battlefields, although not Vicksburg. I need to get there because my great grandfather and two of his brothers were at Vicksburg, and his oldest brother died of yellow fever contacted during the siege.
I understand you point about Gettysburg. Unfortunately, modern growth, zoning, and commercialization has had a huge impact on battlefield preservation. The best preserved I have seen are Shilo and Chickamauga. Still, the battle of Gettysburg has been studied more than any other, and there is something very spiritual about that place.
T-Rav; While I have often carped at the constant changing technology, one of the things that prompted me to write this review, was getting an email notification of it's pending blu-ray release earlier this year. I have to admit that if you have a 1080p screen, the blu-ray version is pretty awesome.
Jed, Nice review! I enjoyed this film a lot, though I only saw it once. I saw it after seeing "Glory" so I wasn't expecting much as I found found "Glory" too political. I figured this would be too. But this really was a movie anyone can enjoy because it doesn't seem to have an ideological agenda and it was really well done. You really feel like you are seeing the real war.
As an aside, could you imagine walking all over the country in those thick uniforms in the middle of summer and carrying that much gear?
Appreciate that, Ed. I really do feel both the book and the screenplay are meant to measure the incredible sacrafices made by the participants rather than pushing a particular ideology. At the same time, I must say I felt Glory was also extremely well done and reasonably accurate. It happened 150 years ago, and a lot has changed since then.
As far as marching in the summer in those uniforms, it does boggle the mind. I do know from playing football as a kid, it is amazing what your body can become acustomed to over time. Many units had more people drop out from injury and illness than from actual combat wounds. Straggling was a reality of that war. The "super hard cores" make it a point to subject themselves to the same deprivations whenever possible. A great book on re-enactors is "Confederates in The Attic" by Pulitzer Prize winner Tony Horwitz. It is a hoot and the source of my comments about "button soaking." :D
Jed, that's kind of the feeling I have. Much of the Gettysburg field is breathtaking and well-preserved, but it's also become cluttered with commercialism and doing to death every detail of the battle. Plus, urban development is really starting to encroach on the Cemetery Hill area. It's still a must-see, but if what you're looking for is a chance to quietly reflect on what happened so many years ago and the sacrifices made, I think Shiloh and maybe Vicksburg and Antietam are better suited for that. (Haven't seen Chickamauga, but it's on my to-do list.)
Regarding the film itself, and repeating what Andrew said, it is interesting to see both the Union and Confederate characters explain to others (such as Fremantle) their opinion of the conflict and why it started. You can watch the film and be highly sympathetic to the Confederate cause, while at the same time thankful that the Union ultimately won. Of course, that sentiment would be anathema to many "professional historians" nowadays, but oh well.
excellent review - you actually make me want to see it again...
I read Killer Angels in a survey history class in college - about 2 years before the movie. I liked the book, but it was (at 19yo) ponderous as a movie. My dad LOVED Civil War era history and loved this movie. He kept meaning to read the book, but I don't know that he ever did.
In 2002, I was living in No VA and he & my mom came for Spring Break. One of his requests was that we visit Gettysburg. [I pulled out the book and skimmed it.] We drove ourselves through the battlefield. It was amazing to me how -- sacred? heavy? -- it felt. Dad gave us play-by-play of the battle and we climbed around some getting a better perspective. The only other people there were in a bus across the field. It was kinda eerie but awe-some.
Thanks for the reminder walk down memory lane.
Daddy died unexpectedly just under a year later.
Ria - you are very welcome, and sorry about your dad. There is never a good time for them to leave us, whether young or old, but I am glad visiting Gettysburg created a special memory for you.
I also understand what you mean about the ponderous nature of the film compared with the book. As I said, it was intended as a two or three parter for television rather than a feature film. I enjoyed the books written Michael Shaara's son Jeff "Gods and Generals" which was a "pre-quel" to Killer Angels, and "The Last Full Measure" as a sequel.
"Gods & Generals" was also made into a movie by Ronald Maxwell with some of the same actors. Robert Duvall replaced Martin Sheen as Lee. Steven Lang moved from playing Pickett to portraying Stonewall Jackson. That was a pity because Duval at his "Godfather" age would have been a dead ringer for Stonewall. Alas,!
That movie was a huge disappointment compared to Gettysburg. From about 12 hours of film, it was culled down to around three, and had a real lack of continuity. As a buff, I wished they had kept the 12 hours, made it into a mini-series and sold multi-disc sets to buffs like myself.
Tennessee: There's very little that could be added to your review. TCM showed it recently, and I watched it again for the second time, Tivo'd it, and watched it for the third time at my leisure. It's a bit like reading a very good historical novel. There's so much to absorb, that it bears repeating. I was glad that they retained so much of the speech patterns, particularly of the Southerners. And the actors were expert enough to make it sound noble rather than corny or overblown. As for Jeff Daniels, I agree that he stole every scene he was in.
Excellent review, and thanks.
T-Rav - you are so right about the commercialism encroaching. Manassas, and Gettyburg are probably the worst along with the whole Richmond Petersburg area. Antietam is wonderful. I think the battles in areas that still have a more rural flavor really helps in that regard.
If you get a chance to go to Chickamauga, Chatanooga is special as well. The terrain around Chatanooga is simply spectacular. Although some sites have become completely urbanized, Fredericksburg was really cool because you could gain a real perspective on just how impossible the field was for the federals attacking Marye's Heights. Likewise, the Wilderness/Chancelorsville battlefields are pretty well preserved. If you ever want to do Chatanooga and Chickamauga, let me know.