Most of the good and bad of this film comes directly from the source material. When you boil down the script, based on "The Killer Angels", Michael Shaara's excellent novel, you are left with two main plots: Longstreet's reluctant leadership of Pickett's Charge, and Chamberlain's desperate defense of Little Round Top. Throw in some eloquent prognostication from General Buford, voiced here by the grave and gravelly Sam Elliot, and you've got a focused narrative that unwinds over the course of four and a half hours.
What neither the book, nor the film deal with, is everything else. Sure, we are left with General Trimble's dire predictions concerning Culp's Hill, but the audience doesn't see one frame of that particularly bloody spot of the battlefield. Similarly, the Wheat Field and Peach Orchard, where an entire Corps was misled to a gruesome fate, serves only as a fleeting prelude to a single Regiment's bayonet charge.
These are not bad editorial decisions: any lucid historical narrative has to dispense with some important details to get at the heart of the overarching plot. The proof is in the pudding: "Gettysburg" is a better-constructed story than the meandering, pointless "Gods and Generals." So much for plot. Viewers must accept that this film only scratches the surface of the pivotal battle. Repeated viewings may help crystallize the characters, but the battle is still largely nebulous, with lots of "Go over there" or "They're over that way". One needs a map to truly understand the battle, and this film puts us very much in the shoes of the common soldier, who had no idea what was beyond each ridge.
So, is it a good MOVIE? For starters, it's definitely a good story. Joshua Chamberlain exercised enormous poise and control in the midst of a hellacious set of circumstances. Here we truly see a commander snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Longstreet's contrasting inability to do so makes him a pitiable character. Buford's appearance is significant in that it helps establish how and why the two armies settled into their positions.
As for the acting, Jeff Daniels is marvelous as Chamberlain. Tom Berenger is equally good as Longstreet, though his performance is necessarily more nuanced, his already stoic facial expressions hidden by all that facial hair. One of the biggest weaknesses of this movie is the inexplicable casting of Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee. Sheen, the erstwhile amazing president, gives the monumental general a mousy and diminutive quality. Robert Duvall did much better in the otherwise horrendous prequel. Perhaps no one can portray Lee, much as no woman ever made could hope to portray the quintessential Elizabeth Bennett. But Sheen doesn't even come close.
Gettysburg is equally favorable towards both North and South. Both have good and bad leadership, and the film manages to be sympathetic towards many of the opposing participants without descending into hyperbolic exultation.
This is not a film about slavery. The issue is certainly discussed by both sides, but it was of no immediate importance to the action unfolding at Gettysburg. Any criticism leveled at the film on that score misses the point. Those who are genuinely offended should watch "Glory" and note how many times the word "slavery" is mentioned there. There are heroes and villains on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. To charge a movie as being racist simply because it deals even-handedly with both sides is idiotic. Simply put, America deserves to see both sides, because America WAS both sides. America was both the conqueror and conquered, and the history must reflect that dichotomy.
Ultimately, what recommends this movie is more than what detracts from it. The representations, ranging from uniforms and equipment to the actual engagements, are dead-on accurate. But a better portrayal of Robert E. Lee would have helped show what kind of personality Longstreet was up against, and how his objections never had a chance, even after he was proved right. The film's understated use of metaphors is easy to miss. The fictional Kilrain has much to say regarding his place in America, and viewers should pay attention to where he fits in by the film's end. Also of note is the interplay between the two Chamberlain brothers, and what they're doing in the final scene of the movie.
It's a good movie, sure, but not a great one. We'll just have to keep waiting for that definitive Civil War movie to come along.
What neither the book, nor the film deal with, is everything else. Sure, we are left with General Trimble's dire predictions concerning Culp's Hill, but the audience doesn't see one frame of that particularly bloody spot of the battlefield. Similarly, the Wheat Field and Peach Orchard, where an entire Corps was misled to a gruesome fate, serves only as a fleeting prelude to a single Regiment's bayonet charge.
These are not bad editorial decisions: any lucid historical narrative has to dispense with some important details to get at the heart of the overarching plot. The proof is in the pudding: "Gettysburg" is a better-constructed story than the meandering, pointless "Gods and Generals." So much for plot. Viewers must accept that this film only scratches the surface of the pivotal battle. Repeated viewings may help crystallize the characters, but the battle is still largely nebulous, with lots of "Go over there" or "They're over that way". One needs a map to truly understand the battle, and this film puts us very much in the shoes of the common soldier, who had no idea what was beyond each ridge.
So, is it a good MOVIE? For starters, it's definitely a good story. Joshua Chamberlain exercised enormous poise and control in the midst of a hellacious set of circumstances. Here we truly see a commander snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. Longstreet's contrasting inability to do so makes him a pitiable character. Buford's appearance is significant in that it helps establish how and why the two armies settled into their positions.
As for the acting, Jeff Daniels is marvelous as Chamberlain. Tom Berenger is equally good as Longstreet, though his performance is necessarily more nuanced, his already stoic facial expressions hidden by all that facial hair. One of the biggest weaknesses of this movie is the inexplicable casting of Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee. Sheen, the erstwhile amazing president, gives the monumental general a mousy and diminutive quality. Robert Duvall did much better in the otherwise horrendous prequel. Perhaps no one can portray Lee, much as no woman ever made could hope to portray the quintessential Elizabeth Bennett. But Sheen doesn't even come close.
Gettysburg is equally favorable towards both North and South. Both have good and bad leadership, and the film manages to be sympathetic towards many of the opposing participants without descending into hyperbolic exultation.
This is not a film about slavery. The issue is certainly discussed by both sides, but it was of no immediate importance to the action unfolding at Gettysburg. Any criticism leveled at the film on that score misses the point. Those who are genuinely offended should watch "Glory" and note how many times the word "slavery" is mentioned there. There are heroes and villains on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. To charge a movie as being racist simply because it deals even-handedly with both sides is idiotic. Simply put, America deserves to see both sides, because America WAS both sides. America was both the conqueror and conquered, and the history must reflect that dichotomy.
Ultimately, what recommends this movie is more than what detracts from it. The representations, ranging from uniforms and equipment to the actual engagements, are dead-on accurate. But a better portrayal of Robert E. Lee would have helped show what kind of personality Longstreet was up against, and how his objections never had a chance, even after he was proved right. The film's understated use of metaphors is easy to miss. The fictional Kilrain has much to say regarding his place in America, and viewers should pay attention to where he fits in by the film's end. Also of note is the interplay between the two Chamberlain brothers, and what they're doing in the final scene of the movie.
It's a good movie, sure, but not a great one. We'll just have to keep waiting for that definitive Civil War movie to come along.