Gettysburg

A film that runs longer than 'Lawrence of Arabia' and only covers three days of action sounds a long haul but it is not. As someone who is both British and interested rather than an expert on the Civil War I found 'Gettysburg' very satisfying. The prologue makes the objectives of the two armies clear and the 'updates' in the form of dialogue between the commanders mean the viewer doesn't lose sight of the course of events. The battle scenes capture the "terrible beauty" of combat, conveying terror, claustrophobia and violence without being too horrific.

More important, the film makes the most of the remarkably rich characters who took part. My only hope is that Col. Chamberlain was as intelligent, humane and courageous in life as Jeff Daniels's performance. This is just one example, and there are many men one would like to know more about as a result of seeing this.

The one question I was left with came from Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee. I know Lee had been unwell before the battle but Martin Sheen seems strangely remote from events, with a glazed look in his eye and high-pitched 'other worldly' voice. Is this fair and accurate? At least Lee has the moral courage to say "It's all my fault" when he sees the result of Pickett's Charge. I don't remember Douglas Haig saying that after the first day on the Somme in 1916.

With a few notable exceptions Schindler's List, Braveheart, Saving Private Ryan and Glory, history based movies usually die quick and quiet in the movie theater (The Messenger, Ride with the Devil, Cobb) History flicks cost a bundle to make with the costumes and the challenge of finding a place to shoot that's nowhere near highways, bridges, and cities, and they don't always appeal to mass audiences.

So it's not that often that really good historical film comes around. As a result, it's good not to be too fussy when one does. Both Gettysburg and the Killer Angels, the book it was based on, were stuffed with historical inaccuracies, the grossest of all being the presence of the 20th Maine regiment anywhere near Pickett's charge (this happens in both the movie and the book).

For all the lengthy soliloquies, historical misses, whitewashed violence, and the fact that only about 30% of the battle of Gettysburg is shown on film, Gettysburg remains as the best effort to capture the sprawling battle of July 1863 on film. Where the movie lacks in realism, it makes up for it's dialogue, and in the scope of the battle scenes, which are on a scale so grand, that the bloodless body count and the inaccurate tactics can be forgiven. The sheer numbers of soldiers taking part in Pickett's charge was breathtaking. Kudos to the reenactors.

Martin Sheen and Tom Beringer were they're usual excellent selves as Lee and Longstreet and for me, their ongoing debate of the strategy of Gettysburg helped make the movie. Other highlights include the disenchantment of Union soldiers at this stage of the Civil War, and the personal trauma Richard Jordan's Lewis Armistead felt at having to fight his friend Winfield Hancock not only in the same war, but in the same sector of the same battle of that war.

Much of Gettysburg has to be viewed with a grain of salt, but until a Stephen Speilberg or other directing genius with a knack for war footage comes along, it's one of the best we have. And it's pretty good.

All I hear is people griping about how long this film is. That's not the point. The point is it represents what is considered by historians to be the most important battle of the American Civil War.

I will admit that the length of the film kinda takes away from it, but it is nonetheless good.

Save a few historical gaffes (eg. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine at Picket's Charge - in reality, they were being held in reserve near the Round Tops with the rest of the V Corps), this film is very realistic, using thousands of professional re-enactors to fight the battle scenes, which adds to it.

Many battles and side notes were left out (eg. Vincent was mortally wounded on Little Round Top; or did they mention this, I don't remember), but that is okay, given the film focuses on Joshua L. Chamberlain and the 20th Maine, who saved the day at Little Round Top on July 2.

Skirmishes at the Herr Tavern, McPherson's Hill, Little Round Top, and Picket's Charge were all the fighting I remember. But, again, this doesn't really take anything away.

The sweep and grandeur is helped by the superb cinematography (by Kees Van Oostrum) and great acting on the part of Tom Berenger (Longstreet), Martin Sheen (Lee), Jeff Daniels (Chamberlain), C. Thomas Howell (Tom Chamberlain), Sam Elliot (Buford), and the rest of the superb cast. A standout is the late Richard Jordan as Lewis Armistead, the brigade commander in Picket's division who was killed leading his troops "over the top" against Union artillery.

The battle scenes are excellent; Picket's Charge, in real time, is superb, but the furious battle for Little Round Top is one of the most desperate battle scenes ever filmed. You can feel the fear and tension of the 20th Maine as the 44th Alabama (I believe this is correct) charges up the hill again and again. When Chamberlain and his men finally sweep their opponents off the hill?

I think that it may have been good to portray the charging Confederates as well, since they had many interesting stories among them (e.g., the commander of the 44th, William Oates, had a brother, John, who had been ill with a fever and refused to stay behind, and was mortally wounded in the carnage), and the heroics of such people as Vincent himself, and Patrick O'Rourke (who led his New York regiment in a counterattack that saved Vincent's right flank and was killed in the charge) are neglected, but I'm not complaining.

Despite the length and a few overdramatic speeches, this is a great movie.

Seven out of ten.

I just want to respond to the criticism of this movie's use of Civil War reenactors as extras. Yes, the average reenactor is a heck of lot older and fatter than was the average Civil War soldier. Reenactors are great at dressing as Civil War soldiers, but most of them don't LOOK anything like Civil War soldiers, who were very young men reduced to sinew and bone from physical exertion and poor diet. Also, reenactors are not professional actors or stunt men which is very evident in this movie. (In some scenes you can actually see some of them staring into the camera while everyone else is looking off in another direction. Also, their embarrassing attempts to recreate hand-to-hand combat during the finale of Pickett's Charge are just pathetic to watch. Not to mention the melodramatic "deaths" and the guys grinning like Cheshire Cats while they're supposed to be acting as in fear of their lives.)

However, there is NO way "Gettysburg" could have been made without reenactors. In order to give the movie's battle scenes an "epic" look, it needed several thousand extras and this film didn't have anyway near the budget to afford professional extras or travel overseas to rent-out a small European army as Hollywood films used do to. Heck, the production company couldn't even afford a decent make-up department (which is obvious from those awful, fake looking beards) let alone hire hundreds of professional extras, costume them, and train them. Reenactors, despite their faults, made this movie possible by working for free and by bringing their own uniforms, equipment, knowledge of Civil War tactics, and enthusiasm for this project. It was either use the services of reenactors or no movie about the battle of Gettysburg was going to be made.

While "Gettysburg" could not have been made without reenactors, I do feel director Ronald Maxwell could have done a better job of filming around some of the more ridiculous looking ones. Instead, he almost seems to revel in showing off the fattest and oldest of the bunch- the first Confederate soldier with a speaking part is a man over 60 yrs old who had to be at least 300lbs! Now how can anyone believe that this man marched 20 miles a day in June heat while carrying a 50lb pack? Supposedly, Maxwell has learned from his mistakes. While he is justifiably proud of "Gettysburg," he was not deaf to the guffaws at all those chubby Rebs and geriatric Yanks. Thus, for the upcoming "Gods and Generals" his casting directors were ordered to be much choosier in deciding which reenactors will be in that movie. (In other words, they were ordered to cull out the fatbodies and oldsters.)

Despite being a big fan of this movie, I can recognize the weaknesses of using reenactors as extras in a period war film. However, anyone who applauds the fact that "Gettysburg" was ever made must also commend the dedication of those reenactors who made its creation possible.

This movie picks up steam as it goes along - leading to its wrenching end, as did the battle.

The performance of Richard Jordan as Lo Armistead must be singled out for praise - his anguish was very moving. I'd loved the actor in The Friends of Eddie Coyle and what a job he does. (It helps that he's given the best lines in the movie). Martin Sheen as Robt. E. Lee is not the first name that would come to mind - but I think he gave a fine performance - his accent was entrancing. Sam Elliott is perfectly chosen as (and wonderfully played) the western General John Buford. I also think Jeff Daniels was absolutely wonderful - conveying so well the different manner of someone who until a year before, had been a civilian professor, not a colonel. Unfortunately although I'm generally a fan of Tom Berenger, I wasn't particularly moved by any scene he was in - he kind of walks through it.

The movie is written so well - and its pace just fine. There are so many interesting scenes, touching on many different aspects of life and war - from the nature of man and race to the paradox of a general loving his army yet having to sacrifice it. Jordan brought home so well the closeness of the senior officers to those on the other side.

I loved how well they showed the varied purposes for fighting of the different armies, and the occasional reference to a perceived resentment by the Union soldiers over what they saw as Confederate pretensions to higher social class. ("They're so arrogant", etc.).

The music is first rate - and definitely enhances the drama. The depiction seems quite authentic.

Some niggling criticisms: aside from the map at the start of the movie, there is none. Maps would definitely have helped to undeerstand the overall picture. People commonly refer to directions (from the norht, from the west, etc.) or "we must flank them to the right" and it's hard to understand if you haven't read about the battle.

The scene with the runaway slave is too abbreviated from the book - it doesn't have much impact in the movie.

Kevin Conway's dialogue and accent was a bit over the top, and the English military attache was rather clicheed.

For all that General Hancock is referenced, we see very little of him.

We see the diatribe by General Trimble against General Ewell - but without seeing anything of that battle (or Ewell ever), it just hangs there - rather than being part of any continuous story. (In the book, Ewell's and Early's conduct is more discussed - including a wonderful scene by the two with Lee). If they weren't going to discuss that side of the battle, they should have left Trimble's (well-played) trembling anger out of the story - it doesn't belong in this movie.

Gen. Longstreet is the star of the book and movie - yet I never sensed from Berenger the great brooding quality (and he wasn't given any reference to the fact that his thre children had just died) that he has throughout the battle - according to the book. Similarly, Gen. Lee's health (his heart and headaches, etc.) is a constant factor - not shown in the movie.

Despite the criticisms, this is a wonderfully done movie - from a Pulitzer Prize winning book. It's long - but quite clear, and very deeply moving. I defy anyone to see the last 1/2 hour and not have tears in their eyes. I'd very strongly recommend this.