Field of Lost Shoes

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".

Written by Thomas Farrell and David M. Kennedy and directed by Sean McNamara, Field of Lost Shoes (2014) tells the story of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute who fought at the Battle of New Market during the American Civil War. Despite an obviously low budget and inexperienced cast, the film is charming and emotionally engaging; one of the better Civil War films to be released in recent years.

Robert (Nolan Gould) is a freshman cadet, or "Rat", who falls in with a tight group of upperclassmen, including John Wise (Luke Benward), an ex-governor's son, and Moses Ezekiel (Josh Zuckerman), an aspiring sculptor and the first Jewish cadet at VMI. The war forms a backdrop to schoolboy antics like hazing, stealing food from the Institute's enslaved cook, Old Judge (Keith David), and pursuing a romantic interest with the local girls, including Libby Clinedinst (Mary Mouser).

War comes knocking on their doorstep, however, when Union General Ulysses S. Grant (Tom Skerritt) sends Franz Sigel (Werner Daehn) and Captain Henry A. DuPont (David Arquette) with an army to subdue the Shenandoah Valley. Opposing him with a much smaller force is Confederate general and former U.S. vice president John C. Breckinridge (Jason Isaacs).

Breckinridge badly needs reinforcements, and he reluctantly sends for the VMI cadets, who his battle-hardened veterans regard as nothing more than children playing soldier. Will the cadets get there in time, and more importantly, will they prove their worth on the battlefield?

Field of Lost Shoes is based on the true story of cadets from the Virginia Military Institute who fought in the Battle of New Market on May 15, 1864. As depicted in the film, the cadets played a role in winning the battle for the Confederacy. Ten were killed or mortally wounded and 47 wounded. The title "Field of Lost Shoes" comes from the fact that several soldiers lost their shoes in the mud while crossing the battlefield. Moses Ezekiel did become a well-known artist and sculpted the monument to his fellow cadets that stands at the Virginia Military Institute to this day.

Critics hated this film, charging it with rewriting history to whitewash racism, but that's unfair. Not only did Field of Lost Shoes depict the heartbreaking reality of a slave auction and the splitting up of black families, but it shows VMI's cook, "Old Judge" (Keith David), being brutally beaten and falsely imprisoned for stealing food. The film also outright says the war is being fought over slavery, something other Civil War films have been hesitant to do. There's nothing ahistorical about the characters having differing opinions over slavery or acting compassionately towards slaves.

John Wise's father, Virginia Governor Henry A. Wise, exemplified these Southern contradictions. The movie implies Governor Wise was an opponent of slavery, but it's a bit more complicated. He criticized the slave trade as Ambassador to Brazil and described African Americans in humanizing terms. However, he also said slavery was justified "by the natural as well as divine law" and became an ardent secessionist. Later in life, he supported U.S. Grant for president, the very man who trampled Southern aspirations for independence into dust.

Sculptor Moses J. Ezekiel was another man of contradictions. As an adult in Rome, Italy, he kept a Confederate battle flag hanging in his studio. His best known work was the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery, which depicts (among other figures) a black body servant in military uniform and a weeping black woman holding a Confederate officer's child. In Field of Lost Shoes, Ezekiel is shown as empathizing with Old Judge, which seems in keeping with his later "lost cause" sentiments.

Overall, Field of Lost Shoes was more compelling and emotionally engaging than larger-budget Civil War films like Free State of Jones (2016). It managed to keep a tight reign on its multitude of characters and events, using them to enhance rather than detract from the main story. We can both condemn a society based on slavery and recognize the courage of the men who fought under its flag. There's a reason the Virginia Military Institute still honors these boy-soldiers to the present day, and this film is a fitting tribute to their memory.

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.

What I assumed about this low budget period piece came true. Unfortunately its littered with problems from the production, story telling and pacing of the movie.. The noticeable civil war re-enactments embedded to the battle scenes took me right out of the movie and the long and establishment camera shots had terrible cgi. The one thing I did enjoy was the fact that all the cadets had different motivations for fighting in the civil war. If you're a civil war buff it's worth watching but I couldn't see myself viewing this more than once. The last positive thing I'll say about this movie is I enjoyed the score, especially towards the end while the battle is taking place.