Field of Lost Shoes

A great part of the movie was it's historical accuracy. Showing confederate soldiers without shoes and low on supplies, with the facts about the tributes to the group of cadets by the Virginia Military Institute today in the beginning and the end. It tells stories of perseverance, love, and sacrifice all at once. Right when it felt like it was starting to drag in the middle it threw a twist to keep things interesting. This movie is underrated, and a great showing of the side that isn't shown as often.

RELEASED IN 2015 and directed by Sean McNamara, "Field of Lost Shoes" (aka "Battlefield of Lost Souls") chronicles the Civil War Battle of New Market wherein the Confederates were forced to enlist the aid of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to stave off Union forces in the Shenandoah Valley. While the story properly focuses on the young'uns, notable actors like Jason Isaacs, David Arquette, Keith David, Lauren Holly and Tom Skerritt are also on hand.

This particular occasion in history is pretty famous and I even remember reading about it in war comics when I was a kid, so it's interesting to finally see a cinematic depiction of it. The no-name youths are up to the challenge and, thankfully, they throw in some females to keep things interesting (e.g. Mary Mouser). Practically all the main characters are based on real-life people, including David as "Old Judge," who continued working for the VMI after attaining his freedom. Speaking of the VMI, the institute is still in use today and the movie was partially shot there.

One of the worst things about slavery is that it broke up families when a buyer would purchase one member of a family, but not the others. This is powerfully depicted in the opening.

"Field of Lost Shoes" is mostly a drama about the preparations for war during the Civil War, but when the action comes at almost the hour mark it's pretty effective and thrilling. The biggest downside of Civil War combat was that officers on both sides used outdated military tactics, which they learned from West Point & other academies. These tactics hailed from the Napoleonic wars of the early 1800s. Yet technological advances produced rifles with superior aim, which resulted in ridiculously long casualty lists. Soldiers had no recourse but to stoically march in formation right into friggin rifle and canon fire. Sure, I'd be willing to do this, but only if the Presidents, politicians, generals and colonels marched ahead of me. You get my drift.

So the movie's well done, as far as cast, costumes, locations and battle scenes go (despite a couple of clichés, like one guy utterly stopping to blow precious time emoting over a wounded comrade. Why Sure!). The CGI is less effective, but it gets the job done. The story, however, needed some kinks worked out to make it more compelling in the manner of the great "Glory" (1989). Still, I'd watch "Field of Lost Shoes" any day above the relatively dull, sappy and laboriously overlong "Gettysburg" (1993). To offer balance, I love the prequel "Gods and Generals" (2003).

THE FILM RUNS 95 minutes and was shot entirely in Virginia (Lexington, Charles City, Powhatan & Richmond). WRITERS: Thomas Farrell & David M. Kennedy.

GRADE: B/B- (6.5/10)

The American Civil War is by far the war that lasts forever in this countries collective memory and was decreed in absentia by the flawed original signing of the Declaration of Independence leaving slavery intact. You would think that makes for great films and in many cases it did,however rarely do they have mass appeal. This 2014 release that sometimes seems longer then its 96 minutes,a flaw in pacing,is not preachy yet stark in some of its depiction that may seem uneven at times.Its based on a historic battle fought by cadets from VMI (Virginia Military Institute) that still exists today.However its also a coming of age film and in that sense some might find it corny,I didn't.The young actors were good but unknown to me.The "b"level adult actors were also good and you'll recognize a few,yet less screen time than the youngins.So if you like a somewhat different twist to a Civil War film yet keeping it "real"you might enjoy it.I certainly was pleasantly surprised.One of my lesser known gems.

Unlike the reviewer in "The Village Voice," I found this film to be moving and touchingly old fashioned. The "love at sight,' for example, between one of the cadets and a southern girl rings true and is a familiar, though often sad motif to those of us who work with teenage boys and girls. The jocular and sometimes hostile relations between the older boys seems authentic, as does their possessive and protective feelings toward the boyish 'Sir Rat.' To return for a moment to "The Village Voice" review: the arrogance and 'know it all' attitude of the reviewer toward the South reminded me why my southern relatives refer to this conflict as "The War of Northern Aggression." It is precisely this air of superiority which contributed to the Southern break with their brothers in the North. I do, however, find the modernist desire on the part of the producers to distance the cadets from their region's stance on slavery to be forced. I feel that history and a better story would have been served to portray the boys as fighting for Virginia and their nation, the Confederacy. Part of the southern lore surrounding the Battle of New Market is that Breckenridge wept when he ordered the cadets into battle. I can believe that he cried when he gave the order. What a terrible burden it would be to send boys into battle! I can't believe that the northerner commander would not have felt, at least, a twinge of conscience when he ordered his troops to fire upon and engage with the cadets. The film's portrayal of that man as a ruthless murderer ordering his men to kill boys does not ring true. The fact that the cadets fought like lions might have surprised him and his men--but those of us who have worked with this age group know that teenage boys would make fearsome opponents. In the end, I applaud the film makers for their efforts—they did much more than produce a period piece bedecked with false whiskers—they gave the viewer insight into this brave but terrible episode in the Civil War, or the War Between the States, as my southern relatives would ask me to write.

"Field of Lost Shoes" is far from perfect. After all, it's obvious that the folks making the film had a rather limited budget. In many scenes which should have featured many hundreds, only a few dozen are used. However, I don't necessarily see this as an awful thing. After all, the Battle of New Market is NOT the sort of thing that Hollywood would ever make a movie about, so of course the film isn't as fancy or has quite the look of a big production. I can look past this to a certain extent and think considering everything, the film actually looks pretty good.

As for the film apart from the low budget, it's okay...not great, but okay. Instead of focusing on the battle like a documentary, the filmmakers chose to include a lot of fictional subplots--some of which worked and some of which seemed a bit anachronistic (such as Southern students who believe in equality and hate slavery--not something you would have likely heard ANYONE say in the South at that time) or which just didn't work (the love story). I see it as a noble attempt and a reasonably good one at that. Worth seeing if you are a Civil War buff or love history. The ending was quite touching as well. Otherwise, there are a few better films about the era, such as "Glory". Hmmm....now that I think about it, there really AREN'T that many good films about the Civil War and this one is about as good as any...and not nearly as long and ponderous as "Gettysburg".