vaughan.birbeck

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.

Which isn't saying much, let's face it. What is it about the British and old vehicles? Not only do we love them but we insist on making movies about them ('Genevieve' and 'The Titfield Thunderbolt', both from 1953, spring to mind). This film doesn't have the classic status of these earlier films. I think the writing has to take a lot of the blame, the characters are poorly drawn and not believable, while the editing often lets down what could be a punchline.

The cast also divides between those who can play comedy (such as Cecil Parker, Noel Purcell and Jim Dale) and those who can't (the lead players unfortunately).

To my mind the funniest character is Noel Purcell's Admiral Trevelyan with his blasphemous demands to his fireman (the local Vicar): "Hell's bells! Don't just stand there! Pray, blast ya, pray!!!"

This is generally regarded as a great film about alcoholism. A great many of its ideas and assumptions seem to me to be very dated.

I have known and worked with people whose drinking was excessive and who could be described as 'alcoholics', but their lives and careers haven't automatically followed the descending spiral shown here. They have continued to function adequately enough to maintain their social position and lifestyle.

In this film, as soon as Kirsten joins Joe in his drinking habits, she is doomed. She becomes a neglectful mother, she changes from being a smartly dressed housewife to a careless slattern swilling beer from the can, and finally takes up with any man who will buy her drinks.

Joe, meanwhile, loses job after job and continues drinking until he is raving in a straitjacket.

These ideas stem from the days of Prohibition when alcohol was *the* social evil whose conquest would put the whole world to rights. The plotline of the film actually seems to derive from the Nineteenth Century melodrama depicted in George Cruikshank's "The Bottle". If you view these old engravings you'll see Joe and Kirsten in 1830's London.

Yes, the performances of Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick are terrific, but what is needed is a more balanced view of middle-class alcoholism, showing the *real* cost of what goes on behind our respectable front doors.