Gettysburg

[Dangerman]

After just re-watching this movie on Blu-Ray I have to say this is probably one of the best best war movies ever made at least in the top 5. As a history buff this movie is very actuate and has one of the best soundtracks ever made for a movie. I mean when watching it the soundtrack is just so huge to this movie as it does a great job of adding emotion and drama to the war. I don't know how many people could sit through it all but since I lived in VA all my life this is a huge thing out here (meaning the respect these men carry) that even goes for me even though I am an African-American.

[Spider-Who?]

Great movie. Havent watched it in years, though. I'm from Va as well. Live near Bull Run. You can't drive anywhere without passing a civil war battle field around here.

[Thundercrack85]

Haven't really seen an American Civil War movie in a while. It's all about the World Wars these days.

[Dangerman]

Originally Posted by Spider-Who?

Great movie. Havent watched it in years, though. I'm from Va as well. Live near Bull Run. You can't drive anywhere without passing a civil war battle field around here.

Wow then you're right by me I grew up and still live in Dumfries.

[Kahran Ramsus]

I love this movie. I know a lot of people like to complain that it glorifies the Confederates, but that is really more the prequel that does that. This film handles it pretty realistically, and it definitely portrays Lee as being at fault for the defeat, not Longstreet like most Southern revisionists say.

Gettysburg is really a throwback to the old school battle epics that I love and they don't make any more, like The Longest Day. These days war movies focus on individual characters rather than the events themselves, and for the most part they suffer for it (ex. Pearl Harbor) although there are exceptions (ex. Saving Private Ryan). Gettysburg is really the last war movie in the older style and I greatly mourn its demise. Even Gods and Generals does it, which is less of a film about the first half of the war and more of a substandard Stonewall Jackson biopic.

Finally, I have to mention the score by Randy Edelman which for my money is easily one of the top ten best film scores ever. Simply marvelous and the movie wouldn't be the same without it.

[DACrowe]

Gettysburg is a great movie that did a lot of research into historical authenticity. I don't love the movie because I think it romanticizes the carnage a little too much and downplays the savagery of it, but it doesn't ever overdo it or become a love letter to the Confederacy like its semi-prequel Gods & Generals did. It's a historically accurate account of that battle with great acting, music and atmosphere.

Another Civil War movie I do love is Glory. The music still gives me chills from that movie.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by DACrowe

Gettysburg is a great movie that did a lot of research into historical authenticity. I don't love the movie because I think it romanticizes the carnage a little too much and downplays the savagery of it, but it doesn't ever overdo it or become a love letter to the Confederacy like its semi-prequel Gods & Generals did. It's a historically accurate account of that battle with great acting, music and atmosphere.

Another Civil War movie I do love is Glory. The music still gives me chills from that movie.

I didn't get that at all. Especially in the long Pickett's Charge sequence where the Confederates get slaughtered en masse. There's also the bit where Longstreet visits Hood in the hospital after the carnage at Devil's Den.

And yes, Glory was great too.

[Dangerman]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

I love this movie. I know a lot of people like to complain that it glorifies the Confederates, but that is really more the prequel that does that. This film handles it pretty realistically, and it definitely portrays Lee as being at fault for the defeat, not Longstreet like most Southern revisionists say.

Gettysburg is really a throwback to the old school battle epics that I love and they don't make any more, like The Longest Day. These days war movies focus on individual characters rather than the events themselves, and for the most part they suffer for it (ex. Pearl Harbor) although there are exceptions (ex. Saving Private Ryan). Gettysburg is really the last war movie in the older style and I greatly mourn its demise. Even Gods and Generals does it, which is less of a film about the first half of the war and more of a substandard Stonewall Jackson biopic.

Finally, I have to mention the score by Randy Edelman which for my money is easily one of the top ten best film scores ever. Simply marvelous and the movie wouldn't be the same without it.

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

I didn't get that at all. Especially in the long Pickett's Charge sequence where the Confederates get slaughtered en masse. There's also the bit where Longstreet visits Hood in the hospital after the carnage at Devil's Den.

And yes, Glory was great too.

I couldn't agree more on both accounts. While I do agree you on Gods and Generals I thought the movie should have focused on the start of the war and should have shown Lincoln and Davis. I also believe that Gods and Generals would have done better if showed the a better balance between the Union and Confederates. Although I do get what they were showing when they did focus on the Union and there poor leadership in the beginning. I was sad that they were not going to make the final movie that showcased the rise of Grant and the battle of Appomattox. But the Pickett's Charge sequence was amazing from the score to the heart of those men. Another scene that was great was the battle of Little Round Top.

[Kahran Ramsus]

The part of Gods and Generals that I do like is the Fredericksburg/Marye's Heights sequence where they go back to the same style that they used in Gettysburg and there is focus on both sides. The rest of the movie doesn't work though. In particular the endless scenes involving their home lives are brutal to get through and the film's view on slavery is hard to stomach.

Don't get me wrong, Jackson was a great general and an interesting character, but the film makes him way too sympathetic almost to the point of worship. Also, I felt it implied at the end that the Confederacy only lost the war because Jackson died which is blatantly not true.

[Thundercrack85]

The American Civil War has to be the only war that I can think of where the loser wrote history.

[Marvolo]

Never could enjoy this film. The film is just too romanticized for me. The score is overly dramatic, and the battles while nicely done lack the carnage, and reality of the battlefield. Yeah you see smoke and squibs but there is very little blood and it just looks like those
Re-enactments you see in person. Its just never impressed me at all outside its actors and wowing use of extras.

[jacobed]

I love both these movies except I never watch them because they're so long

[cherokeesam]

I love both Gettysburg and Glory....hands down the two greatest Civil War movies ever made, and their scores are still in heavy rotation on my iPod. Couldn't stand Gods and Generals; one of the longest and most boring things I've ever tried to plod through. If I wanted to see a full-bore account of the Civil War, I'd watch Ken Burns.

My only complaint about Gettysburg is their heavy reliance on battlefield re-enactors. Yeah, it's cool to give the roles to guys who literally do this for a living, but let's be honest --- Lee and Meade's army did *not* look like a bunch of fat, balding middle-aged men with spectacles. One day, I'd like to see a realistic take on Gettysburg (or any Civil War battle) that shows the regulars for what they were --- skinny scarecrow kids fresh off the farm.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

I didn't get that at all. Especially in the long Pickett's Charge sequence where the Confederates get slaughtered en masse. There's also the bit where Longstreet visits Hood in the hospital after the carnage at Devil's Den.

And yes, Glory was great too.

I mean that while it showed many people dying, almost all of them died heroically or romantically. During Pickett's Charge I don't see fear, terror or anything other than noble determination and honor on any of the Confederates' faces. When they die it is almost always instantaneous where they fall to the Earth effortlessly. I like the movie, but the ugliness of war I feel is downplayed. Granted most movies have done that due to censorship and audience tastes. But by the '90s, we had seen movies like Platoon, Apocalypse Now and even Glory to a lesser extent. A few years later we'd see Hollywood really play up the ugliness of war with movies like Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, Braveheart or even the opening scene of a movie like Cold Mountain.

I'm not saying Gettysburg needed fictional characters or lots of shaky-cam. I just like a bit more reality in how war is represented. I don't think it should necessarily look glamorized or mythified. And that is kind of what the filmmakers toyed with a bit in Gettysburg and went full-tilt on in Gods and Generals where the title eluding to Lee and Jackson as gods tells you everything you need to know about that movie.

[Kahran Ramsus]

The attitude of the Confederates was pretty accurate. Lee had spent the previous year racking up victory after victory (and survived what should have been a disaster at Antietam) and his men (and Lee himself) were feeling pretty much invincible by that point. It was only in the aftermath of Pickett's Charge that things changed. Pickett is the classic example of this. He was traumatized by the experience and never really was the same again. This is shown in the film. The mood was very different at Gettysburg than it was later in the war, especially among the Confederates.

Likewise, the fates of Kemper, Garnet, Armistead, Reynolds, Hancock, etc., are accurately portrayed. About the only thing they could have done was made it bloodier, since historical accuracy was such a major concern to the filmmakers. I don't think going for a hard R like Saving Private Ryan would have really benefited the film.

Remember that Gettysburg is romanticized in popular history as well. In the North as being the turning point of the war and in the South as being the high water mark of the Confederacy. The World Wars, Vietnam, and the last years of the Civil War are completely different in how they are viewed.

Of course, it probably mostly just comes down to personal taste. Saving Private Ryan is a fantastic movie, but it is far from something I would call 'enjoyable' and I don't really care if I see it again. A lot of it was really hard to watch. Ultimately while watching a film, I do want to be entertained.

[Thundercrack85]

A Civil War battle with an amphibious landing would be... interesting.

Or some cool sword fighting.

Speaking purely as a moviegoer.

[Airwings]

Is George Lazenby any good in it?

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

The attitude of the Confederates was pretty accurate. Lee had spent the previous year racking up victory after victory (and survived what should have been a disaster at Antietam) and his men (and Lee himself) were feeling pretty much invincible by that point. It was only in the aftermath of Pickett's Charge that things changed. Pickett is the classic example of this. He was traumatized by the experience and never really was the same again. This is shown in the film. The mood was very different at Gettysburg than it was later in the war, especially among the Confederates.

Yes and no. Lee felt confident for victory, but young men charging over a mile across an open field and climbing over fences and walls under constant canon fire and rifle shots would still be a terrifying ordeal. I think it just didn't seem chaotic or horrifying enough. It seemed too much like an adventure until they all lose at the end. Even Chamberlin's great bayonet charge seemed more like a John Wayne moment and not enough like a desperate last-minute attempt.

As for Pickett's charge, Longstreet saw the folly of it and they even hinted in the movie that Armistead saw how deadly and how unlikely it was to succeed when talking to a reporter (though I have no idea if that part is historically accurate). It just didn't feel real enough to me in the movie.

Remember that Gettysburg is romanticized in popular history as well. In the North as being the turning point of the war and in the South as being the high water mark of the Confederacy. The World Wars, Vietnam, and the last years of the Civil War are completely different in how they are viewed.

I'm talking about the reality of war. But it is obvious this movie leaned towards romanticizing the Confederacy, though it tried to be even-handed unlike the prequel.

Of course, it probably mostly just comes down to personal taste. Saving Private Ryan is a fantastic movie, but it is far from something I would call 'enjoyable' and I don't really care if I see it again. A lot of it was really hard to watch. Ultimately while watching a film, I do want to be entertained.

Fair enough. I just think war should be hard to watch in movies that are going for historical authenticity or reality.

[C. Lee]

Some are forgetting that Gettysburg was originally intended to be a miniseries on TNT...after it was made, they liked it so much that they released it to theaters (I was lucky enough to see it at a theater)....so when people complain that it didn't show the bloodyness of the war as much as it should, it was a made for TV movie in the 90's....they just didn't do that back then.

I've read where some historians now think that Lee suffered a minor stroke around the time of the battle (they go by his writings and the observations of those around him) and this could explain some of the missteps he made here that he hadn't previously. I'm sure some will say that that is just an excuse made up to cover his defeat, but I think it has possibilities of being true.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Some are forgetting that Gettysburg was originally intended to be a miniseries on TNT...after it was made, they liked it so much that they released it to theaters (I was lucky enough to see it at a theater)....so when people complain that it didn't show the bloodyness of the war as much as it should, it was a made for TV movie in the 90's....they just didn't do that back then.

I've read where some historians now think that Lee suffered a minor stroke around the time of the battle (they go by his writings and the observations of those around him) and this could explain some of the missteps he made here that he hadn't previously. I'm sure some will say that that is just an excuse made up to cover his defeat, but I think it has possibilities of being true.

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Gettysburg can even be seen as being a decisive "defeat," anyway. The war continued for another two bloody years, and the ANV was just as strong as ever and won some major victories in the years to come; the main thing you can take from Gettysburg is that it stopped, once and for all, the Confederacy's plans to end the war with a Northern invasion. From that point forward, the rest of the war would be fought on Southern soil in a defensive campaign.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by C. Lee

Some are forgetting that Gettysburg was originally intended to be a miniseries on TNT...after it was made, they liked it so much that they released it to theaters (I was lucky enough to see it at a theater)....so when people complain that it didn't show the bloodyness of the war as much as it should, it was a made for TV movie in the 90's....they just didn't do that back then.

I've read where some historians now think that Lee suffered a minor stroke around the time of the battle (they go by his writings and the observations of those around him) and this could explain some of the missteps he made here that he hadn't previously. I'm sure some will say that that is just an excuse made up to cover his defeat, but I think it has possibilities of being true.

He definitely was feeling sick, and the hot and humid weather didn't help. That much was certain. I doubt we will ever know the exact nature of his ailments. I doubt it had much to do with his performance though. Most of his generals agreed with him after all. It was specifically Longstreet that dissented.

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Gettysburg can even be seen as being a decisive "defeat," anyway. The war continued for another two bloody years, and the ANV was just as strong as ever and won some major victories in the years to come; the main thing you can take from Gettysburg is that it stopped, once and for all, the Confederacy's plans to end the war with a Northern invasion. From that point forward, the rest of the war would be fought on Southern soil in a defensive campaign.

True. It was the fall of Petersburg and specifically the Battle of Five Forks that was the decisive battle of the war. Lee was forced to withdraw from Petersburg and Richmond after Five Forks essentially ending the Confederacy. He was caught and surrounded eight days later at Appomattox while trying to flee to Lynchburg and surrendered to Grant.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by Airwings

Is George Lazenby any good in it?

It was basically a cameo. He's only in a couple of scenes. He plays Johnston Pettigrew, one of the three division commanders in Pickett's Charge alongside George Pickett and Isaac Trimble. The focus in the movie is on Pickett's division, so he gets the bulk of the screentime.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by cherokeesam

In the grand scheme of things, I don't think Gettysburg can even be seen as being a decisive "defeat," anyway. The war continued for another two bloody years, and the ANV was just as strong as ever and won some major victories in the years to come; the main thing you can take from Gettysburg is that it stopped, once and for all, the Confederacy's plans to end the war with a Northern invasion. From that point forward, the rest of the war would be fought on Southern soil in a defensive campaign.

It could have ended the war had Meade pursued Lee South. Meade could have taken the ANV army and in so doing probably shortened the war by at least a year. His fear of exhausting his troops et Lee "live" to fight another day and is why Lincoln stripped Meade of his command.

Even so, Lee and the Confederate military might no longer looked invincible, but very human. They never invaded the North again and it was the beginning of the end for the South. In retrospect, while the South didn't lose the war at Gettsyburg, they never recovered and it paved the way for a general like Grant who could just hammer the Confederacy, no matter the cost of his troops, until he won. It was a turning point, even if it was not the end until years latter.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Meade wasn't stripped of command although Lincoln wasn't happy with him. He stayed in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war. What happened was that Grant was promoted above him and he decided to make his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac.

To be fair to Meade, he had to burn his reserves bailing out Daniel Sickles at Gettysburg and thus wasn't very good position to advance on Lee. Sickles nearly lost the battle by advancing his III Corps out to Devil's Den against direct orders from Meade to hold at Little Round Top.

As for Gettysburg being the turning point, it is really hard to determine because the two main candidates occurred within a couple months of each other. The first being Gettysburg/Vicksburg and the second being Chattanooga and Grant coming east. You'll see arguments for both.

[cherokeesam]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

Meade wasn't stripped of command although Lincoln wasn't happy with him. He stayed in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war. What happened was that Grant was promoted above him and he decided to make his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac.

To be fair to Meade, he had to burn his reserves bailing out Daniel Sickles at Gettysburg and thus wasn't very good position to advance on Lee. Sickles nearly lost the battle by advancing his III Corps out to Devil's Den against direct orders from Meade to hold at Little Round Top.

As for Gettysburg being the turning point, it is really hard to determine because the two main candidates occurred within a couple months of each other. The first being Gettysburg/Vicksburg and the second being Chattanooga and Grant coming east. You'll see arguments for both.

Yeah, the War in the East gets all the romance and glory in the history books (particularly in the South), but the truth of the matter is that the war was won entirely in the West, with the fall of Vicksburg, Chattanooga and Atlanta being the biggest nails in the Confederate coffin. Those campaigns are never romanticized because the Confederate generals in charge out there were complete idiots and bushwhackers, so lots of folks like to downplay that side of it.