THE Movie


From: "Douglas M Macomber" 
Subject: "Gettysburg" Movie(Historical Accuracy)

 I know most of you have heard enough messages about the film, but as my knowledge of the battle grows. I keep finding mistakes in the movie. Though there were some amazing historical facts in the movie(Who was present at the Hancock wound, Sgt.Fuger defending the wall). It contained mistakes too(Pettigrew being shot in the breast not the finger). I thought it would be interesting to make a list and see what you come up with.


From: "James F. Epperson" 
Subject: Re: "Gettysburg" Movie(Historical Accuracy)

 >, Douglas M Macomber wrote:

 > I know most of you have heard enough messages about the film, but as my > knowledge of the battle grows. I keep finding mistakes in the movie. Though > there were some amazing historical facts in the movie(Who was present at the > Hancock wound, Sgt.Fuger defending the wall). It contained mistakes > too(Pettigrew being shot in the breast not the finger). I thought it would be > interesting to make a list and see what you come up with.

This would indeed be an interesting project, but it might take too long.

 BTW, I don't recall seeing Pettigrew get shot. The only identifiable officer that I saw get shot in the chest was Ted Turner in his cameo role as George S. Patton, ancestor of the WWII general. As made up, Turner looked a bit like the actor doing Pettigrew, so perhaps that is the source of the confusion?


From: Bryan R Meyer 
Subject: Re: "Gettysburg" Movie(Historical Accuracy)

 > BTW, I don't recall seeing Pettigrew get shot. The only identifiable > officer that I saw get shot in the chest was Ted Turner in his cameo role > as George S. Patton, ancestor of the WWII general. As made up, Turner > looked a bit like the actor doing Pettigrew, so perhaps that is the > source of the confusion?

 If I remember correctly, Pettigrew was shot in the hand during Pickett's Charge, and was then later killed in the delaying action guarding the retreat across the Potomac. So, I don't think that there was any confusion...they just did not show when Pettigrew got shot in the hand.


From: "MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE" 
Subject: mistakes in movie "Gettysburg"

 I have one or two correct me if i am wrong. first i dont think longstreet was with lee when stuart arrived the end of the second day of fighting. And I dont think lee talked to stuart at midnight saying "some very fine officers believe you let us all down". Even though lee gave stuart the order to cause as much havoc on the enemy while confiscating anything he could find.second portraying chamberlain witnessing a soldier telling hancock to get down from his horse. Hancock saying" there are times a corps commanders life does not count". I have to go now but think of a few more. take care all.


From: lawrence@appsmiths.com (Robert lawrence)
Subject: Re: "Gettysburg" Movie(Historical Accuracy)

 > I know most of you have heard enough messages about the film, but as my >knowledge of the battle grows. I keep finding mistakes in the movie. Though >there were some amazing historical facts in the movie(Who was present at the >Hancock wound, Sgt.Fuger defending the wall). It contained mistakes >too(Pettigrew being shot in the breast not the finger). I thought it would be >interesting to make a list and see what you come up with.

Down in my neck of the woods(Texas) it seems the biggest mistake people complain about in this movie is that the North won!:)


From: "MICHAEL E HARTENSTINE" 
To: gettysburg@arthes.com

 I talked before about the mistake of the movie showing general james kemper being taken off the field by his own men. Two of chamberlain's brothers were with him instead of one as the movie showed. You could say big mistakes were made by what wasn`t in the movie. Like hancock being rushed on the field in an ambulance while studying maps. the lack of appearance of meade. Accept the scene showing meade appearing at his headquarters asking if this was good ground. But not portraying the war meeting on the night of the second with all of his corps commanders could be an important peice missing. If I think of more I let you know.


From: rascal@cpcn.com (Brendan O'Neill)
Subject: Re: more mistakes

 Another Meade scene that would have been a nice touch, but was not in the novel, was on the second day, during the retreat of III coprs, when Meade and his staff were all that held a stretch on cemetery ridge, and were facing a regiement of infantry with nothing but side arms and sabres.

I read about this incident in _Meade of Gettysburg_. I can't remember the author.


From: alexander.cameron@smokeys.com (Alexander Cameron)
To: gettysburg@arthes.com

 Paul,
When the movie was first released, I got into this issue on CompuServe and we went at it for a couple of weeks. It seems that every time someone would list a "mistake", there would be folks who would vigorously defend the movie makers decision to do it that way. My favorite was when I mentioned that the movie had the signalmen signaling with flags at night (they would have used torches), I was told that they were practicing. I gave up. The truth is that given the way most movies are made, it is amazing that it is as close to the book as it is. BTW, their are some big mistakes in the book. Take a look on page 224 (I have the hard bound issue). The map shows LRT with the 20th Maine, 83rd PA., 44th N.Y., and the 118th PA. Say what? This book has been reprinted a zillion times and the good ole Corn Exchange Regiment has been shown on LRT on every issue I've ever seen. The map on 222 correctly depicts the 16th Mich. How the 118th Penn. got on there, I am not sure but it may be that someone got confused with the positions on BRT later that night.


From: "Douglas M Macomber" 
Subject: "Gettysburg"Meade & Ewell
Besides Meade, I think Ewell deserved screen time. He is in the uncut version, where he Rodes, Early and Lee confered about the mistakes commited by Ewell. He appeaers in the main introduction but you do not even get a glimpse of him in the cut version.


From: rascal@cpcn.com (Brendan O'Neill)
Subject: Re: mistakes in movie "Gettysburg"

 Sorry to be replying to the same thread twice, but Michael's post reminded me of another "mistake". I have read, in Stewart's _Pickett's Charge_ among other places, that Hancock was no the only general officer who conducted himself with distinction and personal valor during the canonade. Gibbon springs to mind, and Howard sitting on a caison during the early parts of the canonade.


From: "Douglas M Macomber" 
Subject: Comeplete List

 If you have been watching the discusion of over the Gettysburg Movie, you will noticed some great points. These are just some of those that really caught my attention.These were also randomly picked. Thanks to Jim Epperson, Mike Harthestine(sorry is I spelled the name wrong)Bill Cameron, Brendan Neill and Bob Lawrence.

     There were three Chamberlains at Gettysburg not two.
    Killer Angel's (book, pg.225)lists the 118th Penn. as part of Vincent's brigade.
    Showing muzzleloaders with Buford's stand against Archer.
    Stuart's time of arrival is a bit off
    The biggest mistake:THE NORTH WON

From: k.webb@nla.gov.au (Kerry Webb)
Subject: Gettysburg accuracy

 What about Freemantle? My recollection from his book is that he'd wandered off to Ewell's part of the field as the troops were preparing for the Charge.

 But I suppose it makes a more dramatic movie to have him there with Longstreet at the time.
(But I'll check on this in a couple of weeks when the video is released here at last. Yippee!)


From: c672334@showme.missouri.edu
Subject: North Won?

 Someone from Texas made the point that the movie was inacurate by depicting the North as the victors. Did anyone really win? Sure, the South surrendered, but they didn't loose. There are no winners in war if you ask me, just "more fortunate" people.


To: gettysburg@arthes.com
Subject: Gettysburg flic problems

 My biggest problem with the movie was the choice of Martin Sheen as General Lee. He spent the whole movie as though in a daze or some sort of funk. He was too whiny. Physically he is too short (General Lee was about six feet tall so I read), and he is certainly lacking the bearing of Lee. Someone like Tommy Lee Jones would have been a better choice.


From: kgm@rci.rutgers.edu (Ken Miller)

 I have just joined the GDG and have a question.

 WRT the packing of the movie Gettysburg, what is the consensus on the

 1) extra 30 minutes of the movie; and 2) the leather bound book that are included in Ted Turner's special Gettysburg "gift set."

 Is the set worth $99 for the 30 minutes ("not available anywhere else") and the book? (the bullet, pictures, and map hardly seem to justify the extra $75)

 Did anyone else buy or receive this set?

 Thanks
Ken Miller


From: SELieberum@mail.biosis.org

 From my own feelings, born and raised in Chattanooga. I thought "LEE" came off very poorly in the movie, It made him look like a crazed man. I know this is late, due to the movie being out so long. I just happen to catch the scene of the 20th Maine, after reading the official version on the Group's Web site.

 Steve
SELieberum@mail.biosis.org


From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)

 I have not purchased the set, and found myself flipping to reruns of Laverne and Shirley when it ran on TNT last night. As far as I am concerned they should be offering boxed sets with 30 minutes LESS of the overly long epistle on the glory of war.

 Dennis


From: ENordfors@aol.com

 Yes It was... In answering Ken's question I believe the 30 minutes added (pulled from the clipping floor) was perhaps more pertinent than a lot that was left in. Examples: Buford and Reynolds meeting, Buford entering Gettysburg, Elwell and Lee discussing why the Hill was not taken, more coverage of Picketts Charge, more reenactors coverage, just to name a few examples off the top of my head... IMHO the presentation case is what you make of it...I believe my present from the better half was the best.... ps...I listen to the CD while reading various accounts and diaries...it is fantastic!!

 Best
Ed..


From: Bryan R Meyer 

I heard everyone talking periodically about the expanded version of the movie. It seems as though that if someone did not know much about the battle, that the added scenes might prove useful to the understanding of the movie. I was wondering if there is any way to tell which packaged sets of the movie contain these extra scenes. Does anyone know for sure. Thanks.


From: DPowell334@aol.com

 In a message dated 95-12-28 16:23:04 EST, Steve wrote:
> > I thought "LEE" came off very poorly in the movie, It made him look > like a crazed man.

> I agree. At the battle, Lee was unsure of the proper course, and fumbling a bit for a plan. In the movie, he seemed on the verge of senility to me - I thought they really failed to capture the man on screen.

 Dave Powell


From: ENordfors@aol.com

 Hmm Steve...

 I do not know if I see LEE the way you portray him... In my readings and very humble opinions he was a serious General with vision.. I believe this is portrayed in the Movie.... What was that quote by Longstreet.."We Southerners like our Generals Excentric and _ _ _ _ _ (I can not remember the entire phrase)"

 Not be keep redoing this Movie thread but I really believe Sheen and the directors did an admirable job with Lee...

 Best
Ed.


From: Bryan R Meyer 

Hello GDG Members,

 In watching the Gettysburg Movie, Major General Isaac R. Trimble is shown complaining to General Lee on the first day. The subject of this discussion was Ewell's failure to take Cemetery Hill, a move which added to the failure of the Confederate Army at Gettysburg. Trimble, known for his fury in real life, is vaguely depicted as having such a temper in the movie. He very angrily mentioned Ewell's failure to take the Hill, and said that Jackson would have taken the hill.

 In reading from a source, although I cannot remember which one, Trimble is said to have been friends with "Old Baldy." If this is true, then why was this not depicted as such in the movie.

 Another point about Ewell...According to The Killer Angels, Ewell admitted to being one of the biggest factors in the Confederate defeat at Gettysburg. If this was true, then apparently Maj. Gen. Jubal Early was wrong in criticizing Longstreet and blaming him for the defeat.


From: DPowell334@aol.com

 Certainly Trimble was upset at not pursuing, and later claimed to have an angry scene with Ewell. I've seen various accounts of that incident, some more florid than others, but all agreeing in substance.

 I would caution here that Trimble commanded no troops that day, was along as a supernumery, and really had little idea of the state of Ewell's command after the defeat of 11 Corps. I suspect if he commanded Rodes' Division, for instance, that his opinion might not have been so definitive.

 >In reading from a source, although I cannot remember which one, Trimble >is said to have been friends with "Old Baldy." If this is true, then >why was this not depicted as such in the movie.

 > Why? I think that movies have a tough time telling complicated issues. Potraying them as friends would have clouded the emotional impact of the scene. Not to mention that the book does not really show them as friends either.

 >Another point about Ewell...According to The Killer Angels, Ewell >admitted to being one of the biggest factors in the Confederate defeat >at Gettysburg. If this was true, then apparently Maj. Gen. Jubal Early >was wrong in criticizing Longstreet and blaming him for the defeat.

 > > When asked, Ewell replied that many mistakes were made at Gettysburg, and he himself made most of them.

As to why Early didn't attack Ewell instead of Longstreet, well, Ewell did not criticise Lee after the war, become a Republican, make strong criticisms of Early and other Virginians in print, or do anything else to antogonize the Early-Jones-Pendleton-FitzLee clique in the post war years. Early's agenda was not as a seeker of truth: he had political axes to grind.

Dave Powell


From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)

 Bryan,
The Trimble scene in the movie seems to have pretty accurately followed an account of the confrontation as described by Trimble, with dramatic license used in orating the conversation to the poorly played Martin Sheen Lee. Tucker describes the conversation on page 177 of High Tide, and cites: Trimble, Confederate Veteran, XXV, 211 as well as SHSP, XL, 273 in his footnotes on page 414 of High Tide (see fn 17 and 18)

 Terry


From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)

 Bryan,

 The key to figuring out why Michael Shaara wrote what he did is to figure out the sources he used. For example, most of the stuff on Harrison, blaming Stuart, and Longstreet's mood came from Moxley Sorrel's book.

 The stuff on Trimble probably came from Trimble's "The Battle and Campaign of Gettysburg", S.H.S.P. vol 26, and possibly his letter to Bachelder dated 8 Feb, 1883. As far as the anger, it is probably Shaara's interpertation.

 As to the movie's interpretation of the book, who knows. :)

 Bill


From: ENordfors@aol.com

 Bryan...
Ewell remarked..."It took a great many mistakes to lose that battle. And I myself made most of them." pg 351 Killer Angels. But I seem to remember 2 things about the Generals and Early.

 1] First there seemed to be a lot of finger pointing...(not intended to start a flame) ie...Lee blamed himself and wished Stonewall was still around... Longstreet blamed Lee..after his death... Early publicly blamed Longstreet for the loss..after he and Lee got into it Hood blamed Longstreet....wanted the right... Trimble blamed Ewell for not taking the Hill...amongst others.... Forgive me for unsubstantiated statements but I do believe more than one Brid. Gen. Criticized Longstreet for hesitating (in more than one battle)... Pickett more singularly focuses on Lee as the reason for the loss of his Division... ::thus a lot of finger pointing....

 2] Was not Early implicated in a dark episode in Louisiana?? And would this impeach any opinion he rendered about the engagement??

Best
Ed...


From: Bryan R Meyer 

Excerpts from mail: 28-Dec-95 Re: Trimble's Complaints by ENordfors@aol.com orgive me for unsubstantiated statements but I do believe more than one > Brid. Gen. Criticized Longstreet for hesitating (in more than one > > > battle)... I do not want to sound like I'm flaming, but I must once again come to the defense of Longstreet. It seems as though a lot of people criticized Longstreet for his performance. Among them were Hood, Early, and McLaws. Hood's anger was more directed toward Lee and his handling of the army of Gettysburg. I don't consider Hood a strong voice against Longstreet. I'm sure there were many Brigadiers who held Longstreet responsible. (I believe Brig. Gen. E.M. Law held some opposition to Longstreet.) There were also many people of the Southern Army who defended Longstreet's actions. When the actions of an officer are defended by an opposing officer, there is a good possibility that the officer accused of the mistake was not at fault at all. (I use Major General Daniel E. Sickles defense of Longstreet as an example.)

 The point that I'm trying to make is that a lot of people were at fault in that battle. None of the soldiers or officers of both sides at the battle had a right to accuse one scapegoat. All were at fault in some way, and I dont believe that it was fair for persons such as Law, McLaws, and Early to accuse Longstreet only. 


In response to the discussion I stirred up when inquiring about the movie and Dennis Lawrence's negative comments about the movie, I have a few observations. I did not realize that the movie was on TKR, but was watching it for a third time on the VCR (especially necessary to reprise discussions while my kids are asking questions). Bottom line: having seen it now for the third time, I believe that it is as good a historical picture as can be made.

 We all view the heroes and villains of our readings (both wrt Gettysburg and without) with a certain chauvinism. General Lee provides an excellent example. Can Sheen's performance live up to anyone's expectations, especially "True Southerners" or the GDG? I think not. He did a reasonably good job, especially considering several views that I have read that Lee was suffering from his heart condition at the time of the battle. The movie provides an excellent portrayal of the chronology of events and the sweeping events of the 3 days. I am a professor of geological time and am particularly interested in seeing things displayed in proper sequence.

 The movie has weaknesses. For the non cognisante, it is too long (need I remind flick fans of the debacle of Wyatt Earp? Movie goers have a 2 hour attention span). For the dedicated, it is a bit loose in some details . For those of intermediate background (and I include myself as one), it leaves the viewer with the impression that there were only 3 battles: MCPherson Ridge, LRT, and Longstreets's/Picketts assault/charge. Still, I found the JLC depictions fascinating, and can still hear Pickett's, "General, I have no division," ringing in my ear.

 I am left with two unaswered questions from all this.

 First, was the entire discussion between Lee and Stuart contrived for the movie alone? I remember no such dialog from Shaara's book. (Why oh why did they loose Lee's "they are an impediment to me now.")

 Second, houzabout that book in the Gettyburg boxed set? Ed seemed to indicate that it was pretty good? Any other comments?

 BTW, according the to box, the only place that you can get the extra 30 minutes is from the boxed set.

 Ken Miller


From: CSVZ07A@prodigy.com ( TERRY MOYER)

 --[ ORIGINAL MESSAGE ]----------------- Ken Miller wrote:

 In response to the discussion I stirred up when inquiring about the movie and Dennis Lawrence's negative comments about the movie, I have a few observations. 

The movie has weaknesses. For the non cognisante, it is too long (need I remind flick fans of the debacle of Wyatt Earp? Movie goers have a 2 hour attention span). For the dedicated, it is a bit loose in some details . For those of intermediate background (and I include myself as one), it leaves the viewer with the impression that there were only 3 battles: MCPherson Ridge, LRT, and Longstreets's/Picketts assault/charge. Still, I found the JLC depictions fascinating, and can still hear Pickett's, "General, I have no division," ringing in my ear.

 I have to disagree with Dennis Lawrence. He was too generous in saying that he would give away only 30 minutes of the film. I think I could find at least 45 minutes more to dump.

 This is not a question of having a short attention span, I sat through a midnight showing of the movie the first time I saw it in the theater, along with my (then) 7 year old son. We both were able to stay awake through the whole film and leave the theater excited by what we had seen.

 The movie is excellent for the interest it has aroused in Gettysburg and the C.W. in general - I have seen more posts in all of the CW forums by people who first became interested in the subject after seeing the movie. After repeated viewings however, I began to become grouchy and critical like our host D.L. I received an official copy of the movie as a Christmas present. As I watched the Confederate line marching up the Chambersburg pike in a nice if somewhat sparse column during the 1st day battle scenes I could only shake my head. My understanding is that the Confederate battle line was well formed back on Herr's ridge, not that the attack was made in column to within 50 yards of the Union line, at which time the rebs knock over a fence rail and file into the field in a nice long line, while the Cavalry plays shooting gallery with them.

 Granted, this is only a movie. Everyone brings their own set of personal values and beliefs by which they measure the film experience. I personally found the 'John Henry' scene cloying. Was it really necessary to insert a scene with a black man in a non-speaking role, ministered to by kindly white men with noble spirits, etc. Possibly. It allowed Chamberlain to give his 'divine spark' speech. It also gave his faithful companion the opportunity to end the scene with his, 'I never saw a divine spark' speech. A necessary scene in the film? Yes. To some. Not to me. Include that scene in my extra 45 minutes to dump comment.

 As I watched my Christmas present copy of the movie I kept trying to hold on until I could watch the exciting Chamberlain on LRT scenes. Alas, I never did get there. The tape is still sitting in the VCR where I stopped it... Maybe another time.

 Now about the EXTRA 30 minutes. I must confess that I would like to see Buford riding through Gettysburg with his cavalry. That could be impressive! Somehow the cavalry riding through that Orchard to get to Gettysburg and the Seminary does not orient the viewer to the location very well. I also love the scenes of Buford in the 'Seminary' building with the Brady view of Gburg taken from Seminary Ridge in the background. It really has a nice you-are-there-for-real feel to it. (By the way, Eileen Murphy and Jim Radmore can show you the Cupola used in the film for the Seminary scenes, during the spring muster if anyone is interested. It is a very nice Gazebo in someones backyard right now...)

 This rambling discourse is only meant to defend the contention that there is 'wasted space' in the film (as Dennis was bold enough to declare publicly). Your original question had to do with, is the 30 minutes extra film worth the money. From the replies I have seen to the question it sounds as though it could very well be.

 Well some people like the entire film, some don't. It's all personal preference. Just remember; it's only a movie, it's only a movie...

 Terry Moyer


From: "R. Scott Lee" 

I have to agree with Pat on this. Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee made the General look weak as well as crazy at times. He appears at times to be 100 years old and fresh out of the nursing home.

 After watching the movie again on TNT this week, I have to offer up Robert Duvall as R.E. Lee. After all he wanted to play the part from what I understand, but Turner would not pay him the money he wanted.

 Sheen's portrayal and as Shelby Foote would say, Longstreet's beard, made the movie look like a second hand production at times. The battle scenes, especially the fight for LRT made the movie. I have found that if you turn the stereo amplifier and speakers on while watching the LRT fight you can get the feeling of being in the middle of the fight, the bullets whizzing by, and every now and then, I swear it sounds like soft lead thudding into the body of some poor unsuspecting soul.

 Jeff Daniels should have won an oscar for his performance.

 Scott Lee


From: nikki@postoffice.ptd.net (Nikki Roth-Skiles)

 I finally have to have my say on "the movie". When I first saw it I thought it was great. After all, we had waited in a sea of hype for how long? Then I started to think more about it. It was too long in some places, too short in others, had a great deal missing, and included things which were probably irrelevant.

 I too was very disappointed in the portrayal of Robert E. Lee. I felt his presence in the movie showed him to be somewhat weak and wishy-washy for wont of a better term. While Lee was not well, I don't think he was ever as portrayed. He was a strong general who had compassion for his men, but I don't think he sat around fussing over where Jeb Stuart was. Lee had cavalry there who should have been capable of doing what Stuart could do. If there was any mistake there, it was Lee's for waiting for Stuart to show up. (I realize this comment is outside the realm of the movie - don't flame me for this - I am a great admirer of Lee's but also can see he made mistakes - he was human after all.)

 In one of the postings, the fateful charge was mentioned as Longstreets/Picketts. It should have been Pettigrew/Pickett and that never really came across in the movie or down through history.

 I am not an expert on the Battle of Gettysburg nor on the movie. I guess I just kind of accepted the fact that the movie was based loosely on a book which tried to make the Battle of Gettysburg a little more interesting to the masses. I don't think the book or the movie were ever intended as a history of the battle. I realize the movie made a number of people become more interested in the war and the battle, and I can only hope that through their interest, they will learn what really happened at Gettysburg. Nikki (nikki@postoffice.ptd.net)


From: Norm Levitt

 On "Gettysburg, the Movie" (and "The Killer Angels"). Yes, it's fun to watch, aside from the overwrought film score. But the inaccuracies are painful, and that's mostly Shaara's fault. You can forgive Shaara, because he was writing a novel (though not a very good one IMHO) but the film was packaged as a genuine documentary.

 When I taught a little seminar on G'burg at Rutgers last year, the "final exam" consisted of watching the film and playing "spot the howler". Very few minutes went by without something to spot. (By the way, did you ever notice how obvious it is that Buford's "view" from the cupola is a painted backdrop??)

 Actually I started the course with another Civil War film--"The Red and the White" by Miklos Jansco. Never heard of it? And why "Red and White" as opposed to "Blue and Grey"?

 That's because it's about the Russian Civil War, silly!!:-)

 The point was to talk about Civil Wars in general, and what they can do to a society. Also, to express the wish that Jansco, rather than whoever-it-was, has made the :"Gettysburg" film.

 Which brings up a further point. Given that the CW is the central episode of our national history, and the further point that virtually every episode in the war is an intriguing story, embellished or otherwise, why are there so few CW films? Why is our greatest (if that's the word) CW film "Gone with the Wind" for pete's sake?? (Any producers out there?)

 Back to Shaara. The real damage is that his book guided Ken Burns' episode on Gettysburg, thereby introducing some terrible distortions, specifially the failure to present Longstreet's July 2 assault as the pivotal moment of the battle--and not just on LRT!!

 Norm Levitt


From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen )

 Terry.. You wrote:

>The movie has weaknesses...For the dedicated, it is a bit loose in some details.

 I as an "extra" in the movie for about three weeks. As I watched it again last night on WTBS for the umteenth time I became even more painfully aware of the above. I was thrilled to be apart of it, and was very moved by it the first times I watched it. It is the best so far (IMHO). I have always had this nagging sense though that it lacked the polish that I expected from a big budget production. It now seems "crudely" put together...perhaps disjointed is a better term.

 Perhaps a have walked the real Gettysburg field too many times now to be satisfied with anything less than a "Quantum Leap" back there during those days in July.

 >...it leaves the viewer with the impression that there were only 3 battles: >MCPherson Ridge, LRT, and Longstreets's/Picketts assault/charge.

 A couple a maps interspersed might have helped.

 It doesn't tell the whole story of the battle...which "Killer Angels" didn't either, and I now feel it didn't do justice to the book either.

 >found the JLC depictions fascinating, and can still hear Pickett's, >"General, I have no division," ringing in my ear.

 The best parts withou a doubt. Both Jeff Daniels and Stephen Lang seemed to be "inspired" to do a very could job.

 > This is not a question of having a short attention span, I sat through a >midnight showing of the movie the first time I saw it in the theater

 No complaints about the length.

 >As I watched the Confederate line marching up the Chambersburg pike in a nice if >somewhat sparse column during the 1st day battle scenes I could only shake my >head. My understanding is that the Confederate battle line was well formed back >on Herr's ridge, not that the attack was made in column to within 50 yards of >the Union line, at which time the rebs knock over a fence rail and file into the >field in a nice long line, while the Cavalry plays shooting gallery with them.

 I was part of that filming. It was done by what is called the "second team." The main focus that weekend was LRT. The rest of us were sent out to the "second team" filming site to create what I think must have been one of the most awesome sights...a CS divison deployiong into battle line. There were barely 300 of us out there to create the illusion of 10 times that number (don't have Dr. Martin's book handy to calculate the exact number). When I was there it didn't look right, and now on film it doesn't look right...even with Hollywood magic tricks.

 >I personally found the 'John Henry' scene cloying.

 I agree. There is some other way that the director could have gotten us to JLC's speech.

 > Now about the EXTRA 30 minutes. I must confess that I would like to see >Buford riding through Gettysburg with his cavalry.

 Some of that was filmed, but ended up being cut. I suspect however, that it still would lack the visual imapct as no sets representing the town were constructed. They also cut about 10 minutes of very chilling scenes of the survivors falling back after Pickett's Charge with "Fredricksburg, Fredricksburg..." echoing in our ears...with the smoke, fading gunshots, and our improvished cries of the wounded. It was very unnerving to me...and could have been more useful that all the obviously repeated action shots.

 >Just remember; it's only a movie, it's only a movie...

 I do...just my two cents worth. I wouldn't have missed being a part of it for the world...it was lots of fun...and I did get to march across part of the actual field of Pickett's charge in uniform, heard some ghosts, and survived 5 takes of the climatic Pickett's charge scenes (I made it into the rear of Union lines twice, hid under a caison once, and died twice at the wall)...and can see myself about a dozen times...now I've used up just about all my "15 minutes of fame."

 Bill Christen


From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)

 Bryan, you should know by now that the TNT Gettysburg is a VERY loose adaptation of the RELATIVELY loose Killer Angels (though I will always defend it as a great book against any number of critics brandishing long lists of its errors). Trimble was an old-time soldier - his 61 years made him next-oldest to 67-yr-old BG "Extra Billy" Smith in the ANV at Gburg - but, more to the point, he was an aged supernumerary in the organization and took exception to demeaning treatment. Add to this a brain probably eroded by arteriosclerosis and you know why he acted like nobody's friend. To his credit, he thought war meant fighting and wanted to fight at Gburg, participating in the July 3 charge and receiving a wound. Shaara used an impatient Trimble to highlight Ewell's indecisiveness as to pressing on with the attack on late July 1.

 Remember all the early hoopla about actor Robert Duval playing Lee? It'd be interesting to see who else was considered for possible roles. Though Ron Maxwell started out with good intentions of finding dead-on portrayals, I think he was forced to give up on this due to time, money, etc, etc.

 And speaking of movies, Gerry Regan notes that Michaelo Blake's as-yet-unpublished novel, "Marching To Valhalla," - a tale of Gen. George Armstrong Custer's relationship with his wife - has already been optioned by Ted Turner for $3 million.


From: "James F. Epperson" 

On Fri, 29 Dec 1995, John Schuurman wrote:

 > And the nominees are:

 > > Gettysburg

 Good choice

 > The Red Badge of Courage

 Which version? (Audie Murphy or Richard Thomas?) Both are good.

 > GWTW

 Good choice.

 > Glory

 Good choice.

 > The Blue and The Grey

 Horrible choice. This was a horrible pice of junk.

 > May I have the envelopes please:

 > > And the winner is: GLORY

A defensible choice, but you left off THE HORSE SOLDIERS from the list of nominees. It is much better than THE BLUE AND THE GREY.

 Jim Epperson 


From: Jim Giglio 

Opinion Survey: What actor would you select as having sufficient depth to portray Lee convincingly?


From: Dave Navarre <73613.1150@compuserve.com>

 Ed wrote: "Not be keep redoing this Movie thread but I really believe Sheen and the directors did an admirable job with Lee..."

 Now , ah'm sarry, Ehd, but Genrul Lee's accent wuz vera poor.

 Seems that an accent is the hardest thing for an actor who's never used one before - witness Costner in Robin Hood with 'is part-time pseudo-accent. I can carry one off in conversation but doubt I could do it for several hours over a few months with any consistency.

 I don't think they did Lee any GREAT disservice in the movie, but as with all history, it's "interpretation that I count on and I just can't set my easel to please me". This movie was pro-Longstreet, Buford and Chamberlain; put Lee, Ewell and Hill at fault; and ignored many others (hey, it was a long movie ALREADY). My only real complaint is that the Pickett's charge flyovers and repeated explosions just went on about 15 minutes too long.

 Nonetheless, as historians, we can be greatful for the service this movie provided, bringing many people back to studying and learning about their heritage. I think the appreciation of the general public for the suffering endured by our forefathers (Hey, I only have one father!) has been greatly enhanced these last few years.

 Sorry to blow so hard,

 Dave N


From: Norman Levitt 

To Jim Giglio's survey:
Best Actor as RE Lee: Anthony Hopkins

 Norm Levitt
From: Norman Levitt 

To Heather Peake:

 The representation of Fremantle as a twit in a dress uniform was one of the most misleading things about the "Gettysburg" movie (and Shaara's book. Fremantle was on leave from his British Army duties when he visited the Confederacy; he wasn't an official "observer". He dressed in civvies; in fact, he was noteworthy for the eccentricity of his dress, which included an oversized top-hat. It was also noted that he wore the same clothes every day--i.e., he wasn't up to the sartorial standards of the gentleman-class.

 He was a character, but not the movie's character.

 Norm Levitt


From: "Heather Peake" 

To Norm Levitt:
Fremantle, whatever his real-life role, served an important function in the book, a little less so in the movie. As the foreigner-outsider, he allowed Shaara to fill in the backgound without having to rely on straight exposition. His presence let the Southerners talk about themselves and their views in ways that would have sounded less natural had they just been talking to each other...it gave them a reason to explain themselves. It also brought up the issue of European intervention. And remember, in the book version, there was also a Prussian observer, so this was a rare case in the movie when something was actually left out.

 At least in the movie he got to look nice....
Happy New Year, Heather Peake


From: benedict@ns.moran.com (Benedict R Maryniak)

 GLORY had its moments, but I can't let it be called the best movie!

 During January 1990, two remarkable reviews of the film Glory appeared in print - the New York Times ran Richard Bernstein's "Can Movies Teach History?" and The New Republic for January 8 & 15 contained James M McPherson's "The 'Glory' Story." Both writers listed the movie's inaccuracies and omissions, but Pulitzer Prize winner McPherson concluded on a positive note. He forgave the filmaker's use of artistic license because Glory is a powerful movie that will go a long way in correcting the distortions and romanticizations which have been perpetuated by Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind . While it is impossible to argue with such a conclusion, I feel that all self-respecting Civil War addicts should never miss an opportunity to set the record straight regarding the errors in Glory , as well as to place Colonel Shaw's assault in proper perspective as to the overall contest for Battery Wagner. It is impossible to minimize the fact that the "poetic truth" of Glory was concocted by cinematic "artists" of dubious repute - director Edward Zwick is known for his TV series "Thirty Something", and screen writer Kevin Jarre gave the world "Rambo II."

 Ignoring the ocean being on the wrong side, Glory is salted with small distortions which, maddeningly, seem attributable only to whims of the artistic genius of its creators:

 * The Fifty-Fourth Regiment began organizing in February 1863, not three months earlier.

 * Frederick Douglass looked like he did at the age of 70; he was 45 in 1863.

 * Shaw and his father agonized about whether he should accept the 54th's Colonelcy at the Second Massachusetts Regiment's winter quarters in Virginia, not in the middle of a house party. Governor Andrews didn't offer it in person and Douglass wasn't watching.

 * Beyond Shaw, none of the 54th's actual members are named. For example, the Major was not "Cabot Forbes" but Edward Hallowell. Further, Glory follows a stale cinematic formula in reducing the entire regiment into four guys who share the same tent. While "Trip" the runaway slave hates everybody, graybeard "Rawlins" acts like a Zen master; Shaw's fictitious childhood friend, the eggheaded "Thomas," plays straight man to "Sharts" the stuttering field hand. All are deadly cliches with no foundation in fact.

 * We never meet the Johnnies in the movie, the Confederates are reduced to playing the part of faceless evil.

 * The regiment's refusal to accept pay because of unequal rates took place long after the Fifty-Fourth had left South Carolina.

 * In the movie, Colonel Shaw gets his unit into action by threathening to "expose" Brigadier Gen'l George C Strong as a dealer in contraband - a complete fabrication.

 * Matthew Broderick's twitchy glued-on facial hair.

 The film people say they were inspired and guided by Peter Burchard's well-written book, One Gallant Rush, but, in their seeming desire to cut the story into bite-size pieces for consumption by movie-goers, the 54th MVI ends up looking like "Lincoln's kamikazes." Taking their tragic charge out of context and separating it from the rest of the July 18 assault upon Battery Wagner leaves the viewer with an impression that these black soldiers proved they were men by gaining the approval of the Union's white male army - they seem to fall prey to politics that prefers dead saints to live victors.

 I know, I know, I know . . . this is the GETTYSBURG Discussion Group. Sorry.


From: GaTechFan@aol.com

 My choice as best actor to play Lee: Tommy Lee Jones (as I've said).
Worst performance in GB by a bad actor: Berenger as Ol Peter
Worst performance in GB by a good actor: Sheen as Lee
Best performance in GB by any actor: Daniels as Chamberlain
Worst beard in GB: Tie--- Ol Pete and JEB
CW movie I liked as a child: The Great Locomotive Chase
Great movie with some CW scenes(west): The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Happy and safe New Year, y'all.
Pat Ellington


From: DPowell334@aol.com

 In a message dated 95-12-29 09:25:47 EST, Nikki wrote:

 > In one of the postings, the fateful charge was mentioned as >Longstreets/Picketts. It should have been Pettigrew/Pickett and that never >really came across in the movie or down through history. Besides Pickett's Charge, the two most common names for the attack are "Longstreet's Assualt" and the "Pickett/Pettigrew Assault." Poor Trimble never gets any credit.

 Dave Powell


From: lawrence (Dennis Lawrence)

 I like the movie _Glory_ and show it every year to my high school seniors in conjuction with the reading of _Henry V. But...

 _Glory_ was simply told through the wrong eyes. The letters of Robert Shaw were too irresistible, and thus the story told was not even told through the 54th's eyes.

 Frederick Douglass had lobbied hard for the inclusion of blacks in the Civil War, yet his role in the movie was reduced to a cameo. In the preview tape provided to the schools he gives his "One Gallant Rush" speech at night from a balcony to a torch carrying cheering crowd of Bostonians, a scene of patriotism that matches up perfectly with Henry's "Saint Crispian's Day" speech - cut from the final version.

 Douglass had felt he would be offered a commission by Lincoln in the 54th and felt betrayed when he did not receive it. Douglass had two sons in the 54th- one was the First Sergeant - and both attacked the fort that night. The first Black Congressional Medal of Honor winner carried the flag back from the parapet of Fort Wagner - his name was NOT Jupiter! It was Sgt. Carney Where are these people?

Added together, I think there is more than poetic license at work in these ommissions. To be blunt, the story of a black regiment was "whited out" by Hollywood.

Good books to start sorting out the real role of the 54th and Blacks in the Civil War are:
 
 

  • _One Gallant Rush_ Peter Burchard (Retitled _Glory_ in the frenzy of 1990)

  •  

     
     
     

  • _Frederick Douglass' Civil War: Keeping Faith in Jubilee_ David Blight (Excellent analysis of Douglass' Civil War rhetoric)

  •  

     
     
     

  • _Frederick Douglass_ William McFeely (an excellent biography to start to unravel this complex American as well as trace the origi of the 54th)

  •  

     
     
     

  • _The Sable Arm_ Dudley Cornish (The first serious study of Blacks in the Civil War)
  • And, forget Huckleberry Finn, if you want to hear the authentic voice of a self-reliant American read _ The Narative of the Life of Frederick Douglass_.

  •  

     
     
     

BTW - Shaw never ordered anyone whipped and would be horrified by the whipping scene.

Shaw got married during the war, but, like _Gettysburg_, this was a man's romance from start to finish.

 Dennis


From: kgm@rci.rutgers.edu

 I came across the reference that left me with the impression that Sheen's characterization of Lee may have been more valid than generally thought by the discussion group. While hardly authoratative proof, Time Life series says:

 "In fact, Lee seemed out of sorts during the battle and seome thought him sick. One officer ...noted that the gneneral was walking as if 'he was week and in pain.' The officer was later told that the Lee was suffering from diarrhea. But it may have been more serious than that...this was the heart disease that would one day kill Lee... only a few weeks after the battle he wrote to Jefferson Davis, 'I have not yet recovered from the attack I experience the past spring.'"

 Think what you may of the Time-Life series, this perception is the same a purveyed by the movie.

 Is there valid documentation to refute these pieces of heresay?

 From: "James F. Epperson" 


I know that this is perhaps off-topic, but I very much disagree with the fundamental basis of Ben's criticisms of GLORY, and these same issues apply to GETTYSBURG or any other historical movie. I've back-quoted some of Ben's message below to respond to individual points. I'll make the sermon up here in front. 

They are making a =movie=, folks, not a history lesson. Characters and action have to be compressed and changed in order to move the story along in a 150 minute restriction (or, 255 minutes, if you are Ted Turner). Focus has to be narrow in order to get the audience involved emotionally with the characters. And sometimes there are practical issues that impinge on the script. We have to look at the total picture (pun!) and not just focus on the trees. Done in this fashion, both GETTYSBURG and GLORY are excellent treatments of an historical subject, with a slight nod going (IMHO) to GLORY.

 Now to Ben's points:

 > GLORY had its moments, but I can't let it be called the best movie! > > During January 1990, two remarkable reviews of the film Glory appeared in > print - the New York Times ran Richard Bernstein's "Can Movies Teach > History?" and The New Republic for January 8 & 15 contained James M > McPherson's "The 'Glory' Story." Both writers listed the movie's > inaccuracies and omissions, but Pulitzer Prize winner McPherson concluded > on a positive note. He forgave the filmaker's use of artistic license > because Glory is a powerful movie that will go a long way in correcting the > distortions and romanticizations which have been perpetuated by Birth of a > Nation and Gone with the Wind .

This, I think, is much more important than any nit-picking factual errors.

 > While it is impossible to argue with such > a conclusion, I feel that all self-respecting Civil War addicts should > never miss an opportunity to set the record straight regarding the errors > in Glory ,

Perhaps so, but only in the manner in which you might criticize the play of your favorite team after a big victory: "Yeah, the QB could have done better, but damn it felt good to kick those guys in the ass!"

 > as well as to place Colonel Shaw's assault in proper perspective > as to the overall contest for Battery Wagner.

This is one of only two serious errors I found in the movie, and it is partially corrected in the text epilogue that preceeds the final credits, as the presence of other units in the assault is mentioned.

 > It is impossible to minimize > the fact that the "poetic truth" of Glory was concocted by cinematic > "artists" of dubious repute - director Edward Zwick is known for his TV > series "Thirty Something", and screen writer Kevin Jarre gave the world > "Rambo II."

 This is like saying that someone who has never yet published a serious piece of mathematics should have his latest work rejected out of hand by the journal editors -- he hasn't done anything yet, why should we take him seriously now?

 > Ignoring the ocean being on the wrong side, Glory is salted with small > distortions which, maddeningly, seem attributable only to whims of the > artistic genius of its creators: > * The Fifty-Fourth Regiment began organizing in February 1863, not three > months earlier. > * Frederick Douglass looked like he did at the age of 70; he was 45 in 1863. > * Shaw and his father agonized about whether he should accept the 54th's > Colonelcy at the Second Massachusetts Regiment's winter quarters in > Virginia, not in the middle of a house party. Governor Andrews didn't offer > it in person and Douglass wasn't watching.

 None of these are important issues, IMO, in telling the story of the 54th. The one important thing that got left out is that Shaw was less of an abolitionist than his parents, and that he took the command more for base reasons (to get a promotion) than anything else. (All this I have on second hand authority from someone who has read more about Shaw than I have.)

 > * Beyond Shaw, none of the 54th's actual members are named. For example, > the Major was not "Cabot Forbes" but Edward Hallowell. Further, Glory > follows a stale cinematic formula in reducing the entire regiment into four > guys who share the same tent. While "Trip" the runaway slave hates > everybody, graybeard "Rawlins" acts like a Zen master; Shaw's fictitious > childhood friend, the eggheaded "Thomas," plays straight man to "Sharts" > the stuttering field hand. All are deadly cliches with no foundation in > fact.

 And doing it this way is necessary to making the movie and having the audience connect with the characters.

 > * We never meet the Johnnies in the movie, the Confederates are reduced to > playing the part of faceless evil.

 The show is about the 54th Mass., not the Battle of Fort Wagner.

 * The regiment's refusal to accept pay because of unequal rates took place > long after the Fifty-Fourth had left South Carolina.

 So what? The pay issue is raised to point out that these men were not being treated well by the government that was asking them to die.

 > * In the movie, Colonel Shaw gets his unit into action by threathening to > "expose" Brigadier Gen'l George C Strong as a dealer in contraband - a > complete fabrication.

 Actually, I think the man that Shaw-Broderick threatened was named "Harker" and was supposed to be the Department Commander, who I think was David Hunter at the time. I have no idea about allegations of corruption.

 > * Matthew Broderick's twitchy glued-on facial hair.

 It looked a lot better than Longstreet's in Gettysburg!

 > The film people say they were inspired and guided by Peter Burchard's > well-written book, One Gallant Rush, but, in their seeming desire to cut > the story into bite-size pieces for consumption by movie-goers, the 54th > MVI ends up looking like "Lincoln's kamikazes." Taking their tragic charge > out of context and separating it from the rest of the July 18 assault upon > Battery Wagner leaves the viewer with an impression that these black > soldiers proved they were men by gaining the approval of the Union's white > male army I would submit, Ben, that this is very much what did happen. The effort of the 54th at Battery Wagner did a lot to legitimize the use of black troops throughout the North. That is one of the points of the movie, I think.

 I know, I know, I know . . . this is the GETTYSBURG Discussion Group. Sorry. No, I think this is something valid to discuss, for it provides a context within which we can talk about the Turner movie. I happen to like it a great deal. They took on an enormous task trying to portray a battle the size of Gettysburg in four hours. I think a little less sweeping cinematography and a little more context might have been better, though. And spend more money on make-up!

 Jim Epperson 


From: "Heather Peake" 
Thank you, Ben, for your Glory post. Not one of my favorites either, for all the reasons you mentioned and a few more, which I will not add. But don't apologize for posting this stuff on a Gettysburg Discussion Group. Let's face it, television and movies are the mediums through which modern audiences learn about the past. If we-- what do we call ourselves...not buffs, certainly, sounds like we're prancing about naked...educated lay-persons--don't point out the inaccuracies, who will? The movie-makers? I think not.

 Sad, but true,
Heather

 From: "Heather Peake" 

There has been one constant through the movie strand, here...actors and fake beards. The fact that produces spend millions on production and cant spend a few extra bucks for something that doesn't look like a dead animal hide covered with lacquer is very strange. The fact that lead actors, who earn hundreds of thousands, or even millions to appear in a movie cant at least _try_ to grow their own eludes me as well. Is it one of those guy things?

 At least Sam Elliot met the challange...


From: jschuu@ix.netcom.com (John Schuurman )

 Here is an actor to stir the pot a bit.
I watched a video of his last night and was struck with how much (particularly the eyes) the guy looks like Lee.

He is my choice for the best comedian in the country today, but he has shown enough depth and pathos in a few of his things that he could carry it.

My choice: Steve Martin. (now I'll duck)

 I am gone for a week to Mississippi. Hope to go to Shilo and Vicksburg if our President and those other guys can get it together so that the parks can open. 


From: STEVEN CASSEL Heather,

 I think most folks will agree with your post regarding Movie Beards. But unless an actor already has a good start on a beard before taking a part, the make-up van is the only source for instant "historical manliness."

Sam Elliott has had his magnificent mustache for several years, after roles in several cowboy flicks in the last 5-10 years. In California, he has a ranch and his own horses. A mustache is also part of Elliott's style and character. As I understand it he is a great guy and a gentleman. Off the screen, he is very close to his personality in on screen roles. BTW, Sam Elliott's horsemanship showed in his portrayal of Buford. One can spot an actor who has been stuck on a horse for a role; they look uncomfortable and barely have control of the animal. Sam looked real good on a horse and stayed in rhythm with his mount.

 Back to Movie Beards -- For Martin Sheen to grow is beard would have taken at least six months before the production of "Gettysburg" started. For Tom Berenger to get his full beard would have taken over a year to grow. Unless an actor makes several cowboy movies, Shakespearan plays or other historical roles, they just can not devote the time needed to grow a good beard. They would miss out on several modern period roles, in the mean time, that would not allow any facial hair. So when they start work on the historical period movie, they have to go to the make-up department for instant "historical manliness." Therefore it is the fault of the producers of "Gettysburg" for not providing realistic make-up facial hair for their actors.

 Steve Cassel


From: GaTechFan@aol.com

 I think the Time-Life series is fine. I also think that Lee WAS sick during Gettysburg. My contention is that Sheen played Lee like he was slightly crazy rather than like he was ill.

 Pat Ellington


From: "James F. Epperson" 

Tonight on CSPAN there was a taped rerun of a call-in show that featured Emory Thomas of the University of Georgia, and recent biographer of Lee. One of the callers asked Thomas about Sheen's characterization of Lee, and Thomas's answer was that he thought Sheen had done a great job of capturing Lee as written by Shaara, and I must say I agree with that. Thomas also said that he thought the "mob-and-handshake" scene before Pickett's Charge was something that would never have happened, that Lee was too intensely private and shy a person to have done that.

 In evaluating this movie, I think many of us forget our own prejudices. We have these men on pedastals, or in the mud beneath our shoes (depending on who we are talking about), and to see a portrait that does not meet our expectations is doubly damning: (1) We cannot see the quality of the characterization, because it is different than we want to see; (2) We are offended that it is different. In the case of this movie, made from a novel, there is a third problem which is (3) that the script is based on a particular book, i.e., the novel. Then, with Lee, who occupies such a high place for many of us, any actor who tried that role and made any attempt to make the man human would be savaged by some of us for one flaw or another. Shaara wrote Lee as a tired old man, and so Sheen played him as a tired old man, and I think did a pretty good job of it.

 I admit to the same flaws, of course. I did not like Sam Elliott's job as Buford, because it did not meet my vision of Buford. I love Elliott as an actor, but he did not play Buford as I see Buford (nor did he play Buford as Shaara wrote him, IMO). As a US Grant afficiondo, I doubt that anyone short of the reincarnation of Sam himself would satisfy me.

 People have complained about the "John Henry" scene and the speeches around it -- it's all part of the book. People (not here) have complained about the abolitionist nature of some of Chamberlain's speeches -- it's all in the book, and was part of the man's beliefs. People have complained about the Lee-Stuart scene -- it's in the book. People have complained that the movie made the battle look like three separate fights -- that's how the book did it. And the book was not Coddington's GETTYSBURG CAMPAIGN.

 I do think they would have helped themselves to have put a preamble up prior to the excerpt from Shaara's prologue, to the effect that the movie will show the Battle of Gettysburg from the perspective of some of the participants, but that this necessarily leaves out a lot of what happened.

Sorry about the outburst. I sometimes get worked up in response to complaints -- I tend to be a very non-judgemental person, outside of calculus exams, of course .

 Jim Epperson 


From: "James F. Epperson" 

GENERALS IN GRAY makes no mention of a "useless" arm on either side. My biggest complaint about the casting of Pettigrew (and Hood) in the movie is that both were very young men and were portrayed as gray-beards.

 Jim Epperson 


From: Bryan R Meyer 

Jim,
Thanks for the information. The Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War only mentions the wound, but nothing about the use of the arm. As far as the age goes, Pettigrew was 35 years old and Hood was only 32 years old. Quite a difference from what the movie portrays them as.

 From: Bryan R Meyer 


Happy New Year GDGolites!

 I think I have located another error in the movie. We all know that Brigadier General James J. Pettigrew was wounded in the hand during Pickett's Charge. Pettigrew was then killed in Maryland, in a delaying action guarding the retreat across the Potomac River.

 I recently received a book for Christmas, entitled "Civil War Curiosities" by Webb Garrison. On page 30, the book says that Pettigrew's right arm was useless after the Battle of Seven Pines. If his right arm was useless, then why, when consulting with Longstreet about Pickett's Charge, did he handshake with his right arm. Am I right about this? Does this once again show the fictional aspect of the movie???


From: acameron@tcac.com (Alexander Cameron)

 Dr. Pat,
Somewhere in my notes there is a detailed description of Lee's medical condition based on a modern cardiologist's (I think) best guess. I realize you were talking about the movie and Sheen's "crazy" portrayal, not Lee's medical condition, but I wondered if you were interested. If you are, I'll see if I can find it.

 Bill 


From: ENordfors@aol.com

 In a message dated 95-12-30 09:37:15 EST, you write:
>At least Sam Elliot met the challange...

 OK Heather..
Now you sound like my wife...hehe....
Not defending Berringer' appearance...I do remember a limp excuse of the weather/temperature/etc.. causing a lot of problems for the make-up group..a while back.... but the end result was sad...I agree...Tom Chamberlain was sad as well....

 Now back to Buford and my wife...ever since she witnessed that segment she has not been the same.......outch I just got a jab in the ribs...hehe

 Best...
Ed..


From: gwjchris@ix.netcom.com (Bill and Glenna Christen )

 Jim...
You wrote:
>Thomas also said that he thought the "mob-and-handshake" scene before >Pickett's Charge was something that would never have happened, that Lee >was too intensely private and shy a person to have done that.

 That scence was unplanned. As an extra that day I had a ringside seat because our end of a very long line of Confederate reeanactors started it. During the week of filming the Pickett's Charge scenes we had seen Martin Sheen many times on the set as Lee. He was not even on call for any scenes. He was very friendly and willing to talk and give autographs. I believe this took place about midweek as we worked on showing the battalions coming out of the woods into line. We spent a whole day practicing it...ready ...action...cut...back to 1, and so on. We were in line (several thousand of us)...Sheen came riding down the line as Lee. One of the assistant directors motioned to us to move out of line as he went past to watch him go down the line...I guess as curious soldiers. Suddenly everyone started doing it, and before long everone was crowding around Sheen/Lee. The cameras were not rolling. After order was restored, we did it again for the cameras...the enthusiasm grew even stronger, and he was surrounded by a host of men thrilled to be doing "Killer Angels" the movie, thrilled to be portraying Pickett's/Pettigrew's/Trimble's men, thrilled to see someone who for us at that moment, that afternoon was Lee. In that crowd of reenactors were northerners and southerners wearing gray uniforms in a tableau that may never of happened there, but surely in smaller groups on other battlefields. Look closely at Sheen's expression...I don't think he was acting...he was just a little scared and definitely overwhelmed.

 Bill Christen

 gwjchris@ix.netcom.com hr From: Dave Navarre <73613.1150@compuserve.com>
Wow. Thanks, Bill. Just reading that moved me... it'll be different to watch the next time.

 Dave N


From: "James F. Epperson" br Concerning this scene, Bill Christen said:

 > Look closely at Sheen's expression...I don't think he was > acting...he was just a little scared and definitely overwhelmed.

 I noticed that the first time I saw the movie, and turned to my wife in the theatre and said that I thought Sheen looked scared at the reaction, which maybe suggested the scene was ad libbed. The problem with the scene, of course, is not the reaction of the men -- there is ample evidence that they would and could respond that way to Marse Robert -- but for him to have entered the crowd and shaken hands with them like a modern day politician is what Thomas objected to.

 Jim Epperson
From: JMRobbins1@aol.com

 In "Lee's Lieutenants", vol 3, page 95, Freeman comments on Trimble's "Give me a Brigade ....." speech in a footnote:

"General Trimble, in his account of Gettysburg, narrated no part of the conversation beyond the statement that "General Ewell made some impatient reply, and the conversation dropped" (26 SHSP, 124). Dr R. H. McKim (40 SHSP, 273), quoted the remainder of the conversation. In McKim's version, Trimble began by saying "Give me a Division, and I will engage to take that hill." That is eliminated because reference to a request for a Brigade fits flawlessly with Trimble's own statement that he previously has urged the dispatch of a Brigade to Culp's Hill. Throughout his narrative of Gettysburg, Trimble wrote with much restraint concerning Ewell, because of their long and affectionate association; but three is every reason to assume that after the war, in Baltimore, where Dr. McKim as well as Trimble lived, the old soldier related the details he did not print. Dr. McKim, a careful student of history, described the incident with no suggestion that the exchange was disputable. He set it down as accepted fact."

End of file
< > "<# )="2" 7=":"> P W `l | &#128; &#144; &#144; <> ¡ ¡ § § ° ± º ¼ À Ä × Ú â í ü<ý                         § ="">?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnoTimes New Roman