Gettysburg (1993)

[Neville]

Although I like westerns, I don't have a particular interest on the American Civil War. Not that I don't find it an interesting topic, but because there are so few movies dealing with the conflict itself (apart from several minis like this one or "Andersonville" I can only name one: "Glory") that it's easy to pass them by.

Anyway, I had never seen these series before, so I though they were a good excuse to leave the Spaghetti Westerns aside for a while.

Overall, I have found the series very enjoyable, but I find the complete running time (around 4 hours) a bit excessive; one is left with the impression that director and writer Ronald Maxwell approached the project with his mind set in Historian mode rather than in Filmmaker mode. Attention to the detail (specially battle tactics) is overwhelming, but it makes the film move excruciatingly slow, and soon it becomes too clear that Maxwell has made too many sacrifices in order to achieve his goals. Hence, many good actors are underused, as their main function seems to be to deliver stilted dialogue and give orders to their officers. There are bits here and there that show Maxwell was aware of this problem, but the mininmal character development can't compensate for this.

This said, the script is so packed with heroics than sooner or later most characters are given their chance to shine, and Maxwell handles this quite well. Still, I wonder how the film had been if most actors had been given more round characters. I've read comments bashing Martin Sheen's performance as General Lee, but his character was the only one who seemed to exist behind his battlefield speeches.

Anyway, at least "Gettysburg" delivers -and extremely well- in the battlefield. Scattered around the four hour span, there are plenty of well shot and ultra-spectacular skirmishes and attacks, which make a wonderful use of real locations and American Civil War reenactors. This was mercifully filmed before the CGI craze, so you can actually see thousands of prefectly choreographed extras moving and attacking at the same time, and as I mentioned some month ago when dealing with Samuel Bronston epics, there's no substitute for the real thing. It makes an impressive sight, and it works wonders to inmerse the viewer on the battle.

Still, it's funny to notice that the best action in the movie comes from the battle of Little Round Top, which involves much less extras. Jeff Daniels has never been better than here, and you really can share his anguish as he sees himself surrounded by far superior forces.

P.D: Whoever made that fake beard for Tom Berenguer should be tar and feathered, I say. I'm actually surprised the man could act behind that bush.

[Flangepart]

Neville : I got to viset Gettyburg a few years ago. 2001, in fact.
While its a tourist oriented area, the Park Service is very good about maintaining and respecting the area. Its a battlefield site, and it was used for the makeing of the film!

A  local resteraunt ( A buffet ) has pictures of the cast and crew all over. I'd imagin the crew got fat while working the film, as the food in the area is quite good.

While there, that yeah, we got a Park Service tour of Little Round top. To actualy walk on that place, and the Devils Den, where many Confederates were killed, was a moveing experiance.
Where Joshua Chamberland made his historic defence and charge....i stood there. Looking down the same hill he did. Amazing.

The film its self has a good trait, as does the movie "Rough Riders". It respects the speaking skills of the people of that era. There were eloquant people then. More so then now, sad to say. The acting is good, and your right, the story is too big to fully do, even in 4 hours. But, i guess thats what the History Channel is for!

While there, listening to a Park Ranger speak with a group, he was the one who told us, that the U.S. had hit Afganistan. History upon history.
So, yeah....with "Glory", this makes the American Civil war approachable for we who came after.

[BoyScoutKevin]

I don't know how you saw this Neville, I presume on dvd, but if you think the battle scenes were spectacular on the small screen, you should have seen them on the big screen, as I did. As they are some of the best combat scenes I have ever seen in a film. But, man was I glad that there was an intermission half way through the film, because at the half way point, I really needed to use the men's restroom in the theater, in the worst way.

And I agree with Neville for such a momentous event in American history, it has been underutilized as a subject in films. Since the first film on the American Civil War came out in 1910, D. W. Griffith's "In the Border States," which can still be seen on dvd, there have been only 190 films, that even have a slight association with the American Civil War, and 39 of those were made for television, video, or were television miniseries.

To close, there are a couple of non-actors in the film. Documetnary producer, Ken Burns, has a credited cameo as Hancock's aide, and media mogul, Ted Turner, has an uncredited part as Col. Waller T. Patton.  And James Bond himself, in the form of George Lazenby, shows up as Brig. Gen. J. Johnston Pettigrew.

[Yaddo 42]

This movie was like a wet dream for some fo my uncles and cousins who are huge Civil War and military history buffs. I'm going to have to admit that I have never seen all of it, when it ran on TNT on an almost weekly basis, I could never just find a time to sit down and watch it all or tape it and take it in installments.

I felt overwhelmed by the Civil War fixation that many still have here in the South. The reenactors, the history buffs, the very large section ( that I now breeze past) in the history books of every decent bookstore I've ever been to, the folks who STILL ONLY refer to it as The War of Northern Aggression (and mean it), the political battles over the Confederate batle flag being displayed on state capital buildings down here, the Stars and Bars flying from anything you can find - it was all just too much. I had it on my bookbag when I was in elementary school, but that had as much to do with the "Dukes of Hazzard" TV show and some generalized sympathy with anything Southern or my naively thinking all rebiellion were noble, blame "Star Wars" for that part. Knowing what that symbol means to some, it embarasses me have associated myself with it even as a child.  

I've been to the battlefields at Shiloh and Bull Run while both interested me they just didn't move me the way they move so many. I found Bull Run to be a strangely calming place considering the carnage of two battles that went on there.

On the other hand, Neville, now that you've seen "Gettysburg", are you planning to seek out the prequel "Gods and Generals" which focuses on Stonewall Jackson? That's another three and half hours of story to tell.

[Neville]

I don't know yet. As I said, I enjoyed "Gettysburgh" much more than I expected, but I keep hearing "Gods & Generals" amplifies the problems of "Gettysburgh", such as exagerate lenght or pompous dialogue, and I also had my share of extras fighting each others.

Maybe later, but not now.

[raj]

Yaddo 42,
you're forgetting the bumperstickers that read
Yanks 1 - Rebels 0, halftime.

[Yaddo 42]

Every non-Civil War buff/Southern sentimentalist review I've read of "G&G" echoes the things you've heard. And the positive reviews I've read about it spend much of their space ripping into the ones who don't like it for political, social, cultural, religious reasons. More red state/blue state and culture war bickering. Check out some of the comments at imdb.com, if you're so inclined.

raj: Good one, if I've seen a sticker like that, I forgot it.

My aunt had a novelty tag on the front of her car that read something along the lines of "The South shall rise again, we're laying low to fool the Yankees!" or "Of course the South shall rise again, we've just been resting for a hundred years!" and had an image of a sleeping Johnny Reb/Rip Van Winkle type across the bottom.

The car and the tag sat in my grandparents' front yard for about a decade - rusting - before the the junker car was hauled off. Wish I had saved the tag, as an emblem of the attitudes.

[ulthar]

Yaddo 42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Of course the South shall rise
> again, we've just been resting for a hundred
> years!"

That is interesting and reminded me of an excellent book.  It's called "The Cousin's Wars" by Kevin Phillips.  Phillips asserts that the English Civil War (Oliver Cromwell), the American Revolution and the American Civil War are all battles in the same "war," each spaced about 100 years or so apart.

The causes of this ongoing "war" are mostly religious, with significant economic factors as well.  If you look at the current culture wars you mentioned in this context, and take Phillips' thesis into light, that bumper sticker may have more truth to it than comedy.

As for Gettysburg the real place, I highly recommend a visit.  It is very spooky, especially the locations aroung "Devil's Den" and "The Wheatfield."

[raj]

Yaddo 42,
was the car up on cinderblocks?
(don't mean to engage in Southern stereotyping, I've seen the same up in the Northeast.)

Sounds like an interesting book, Ulthar

[Yaddo 42]

Nope, but the tires did go flat and dry rot. And it was mowed around for years, but the underneath did get tangled with dead leaves, weeds, etc. and was kind of snakey-looking. When we hid Easter eggs, the car was "officially" off limits as a hiding place, but a few still wound up there.

I did know a guy who put the Jeff Foxworthy line, "If you mow your lawn and find a car....You might be a redneck!" to shame. When he sold his house and the new owners moved in and cleared the overgrown weeds they first found a car, which his neighbors knew was there, but then found a cinderblock storage shed! His backyard had been overgrown for so long that the nieghbors forgot it was there.

Might have to find that book, ulthar, I'd like to read the argument. I can see cultural history, attitudes, and beliefs leading to periodic wars and internal conflicts in two countires so interrelated but wonder if they could really be called the same war. Is the War of 1812  considered part of this as well?

[ulthar]

Yaddo 42 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Might have to find that book, ulthar, I'd like to
> read the argument. I can see cultural history,
> attitudes, and beliefs leading to periodic wars
> and internal conflicts in two countires so
> interrelated but wonder if they could really be
> called the same war.

Here you go:  The Cousins Wars on Amazon

and a sample review:

Mark Noll review on FirstThings.com


> Is the War of 1812
> considered part of this as well?

Perhaps as an extension of the American Revolution, since one of the causes of the War of 1812 was the perception by the American government that Great Britain was not living up to all the terms of the Treaty of Paris.

It might help to point out that in Phillips' book, "war" does not necessarily mean strictly from the start date (declaration) and end date (treaty) ... for instance, there is a fair amound of discussion of the French and Indian War as well.