Tuesday, May 31, 2011

"Gettysburg" on the History Channel

     The special presentation of “Gettysburg” was executive produced by Ridley and Tony Scott. With that kind of pedigree, you can expect it to be more pop history than military history. You can also expect some Hollywood “bells and whistles”. You get what you pay for. The Scotts delivered a documentary made to the current standards of what modern war movies are supposed to look like. This is either a sacrilege or shrewd catering to the masses. Given the History Channels recent programming decisions, it fits their new philosophy and at least it was on an historical topic.


     The program follows eight participants in the battle. They each get their segment, but several reappear at later stages of the battle. They are Rufus Dawes (an officer in the Iron Brigade), Amos Humistan (Union sgt.), Dr. Lagrande Wilson (CSA), Gen. William Barksdale (CSA), Gen. Dan Sickles (USA), Ridgely Howard (Confederate private who was a slaveholder from Md.), Col. James Wallace (Union officer who also owned slaves in Md.), and Joe Davis (officer form Miss.) Each gets a back story and most have some primary source narration. The actors (reenactors?) are okay and better than you could expect. Their stories are interesting, although not necessarily typical. The program is fairly balanced between the two sides.

     The “bells and whistles” are entertaining. There is a lot of action and the modern style editing and quick cuts. Surprisingly, there was little use of CGI for the combat scenes. (They did use it for “flyovers” of the battlefield.) Of course, the deaths are in slow motion and shown several times. The program is very graphic for a documentary. At one point blood splatters on the camera lens. The wounds are also pretty gruesome. Too Hollywoodish, but a good balance to the staid old-school docs. The show is strongest in getting the sights and sounds of combat realistic. It’s not “Saving Private Ryan”, but not bad for a TV documentary.

     The talking heads are a mixed bag. They do have James McPherson, but the others are B list. They add some interesting opinions, but many of their thoughts were apparently chosen to increase the suspense for rubes who know little of the battle. (“I can’t wait to find out who wins”) For instance, on Pickett’s Charge, one said it “had a reasonable chance of success” and another opined that it “almost cut the Union army in two. They almost did it.” These statements were made with straight faces! The trivia-type asides that are thrown in by the narrator are cool and informative. There are segments on how the rifles and cannons worked that are well done.

     The biggest flaw is in its coverage of strategy and tactics. The decision to concentrate on eight participants and cover the battle was a poorly executed one. For instance, we launch into Dawes’ story before we get a map tutorial on Lee’s strategy. Also, Dawes minor victory was not typical of the first day’s fighting. There are shocking omissions. No mention of the actual start of the battle and unbelievably nothing on the fight for Little Round Top! Sickles’ decision to move forward is treated as a golden opportunity for the South to break the Union army in two rather than what it actually was – the chance to cut out a large body of troops. Stuart’s faux pas is mentioned, but he is not. As a tutorial on the battle, the doc falls short.

     By far the greatest strength of the program was the reenactors. They are amazing. They will probably cringe at some of the stuff that appeared on the screen, but they did their usual outstanding job making sure all the little details were right. The uniforms and weapons were all authentic. We should have more movies set in the Civil War to take advantage of this awesome resource. I bet there was no Hollywood-style boot camp for the actors in this one. It was nice to see them honored (?) with one of the funniest commercials ever – the Geico cave man as a by-the-book reenactor spot.

     There will be people who despise this program. I am not one of them. I have learned to lower my standards and accept the few crumbs the History Channel tosses history buffs. After all, can’t we all agree it was an improvement over “American Pickers”? It was a nice compromise between what the ignorant masses want for entertainment and what the purists would want in information. Let’s hope it gets good ratings so THC might decide to show some history programs. It is a dream I have.

17 comments:

  1. I'm glad it wasn't all that bad, I even have a feeling you did enjoy it. I think i might have liked it but no chance of seeing this here. Those reenactors do amaze me. I'm sure some do a great job.

    ReplyDelete
  2. i was disappointed

    i wanted scale and we got, instead, the same reenactments seen on history channel's regular "civil war" shows

    i would much rather see a gettysburg battle simulation using the "rome:total war engine"

    you could then incorporate/weave what scott(2) managed to put out



    the largest artillery barrage in the history of the western hemisphere and there were 5 cannons with each army WTF

    and what a disservice to pickett's charge
    damn-

    but, much kudos and thanks to warmoviebuff
    for blogging this-- i've been wanting to vent for several days over the lackluster display of war movies (on all networks/cable) over a holiday which is only an homage to all of our soldiers

    ReplyDelete
  3. I did not mention it in my review because I did not to go too long, but I agree about the scale. There were not enough men in the units or cannons in the artillery. However, either they would have had to fill in with CGI soldiers or had a Ted Turner type budget that would have given them a Gettysburg - The Movie scale. I think that given the strategy of focusing on eight participants, the scale was appropriate.

    signed - War Movie Buff

    ReplyDelete
  4. I watched a good bit of this but didnt think there was much new. Same History channel reenactment style with voice over. Fake blood hitting the lense is verrrrry hollywood. But thats the way it was advertised: Gettysburg Graphic. Flyovers were pretty cool idea.
    The better history show for Memorial Day was actually on PBS. American Experience ran a documentary called War Letters. Covered several wars and with actors reading. Very effective. Good variety of old films shown. American Experience is by far the best, more consistent history show on tv. Wide ranging topics and well produced.

    ReplyDelete
  5. THC has to cater to the "Ice Road Truckers" crowd, I suppose. I also liked the flyovers, but usually could not get my bearings as to what we were supposed to be looking at.

    I agree about American Experience. "War Letters" is actually pretty old. I show the WWI excerpts sometimes in class.

    signed - War Movie Buff

    ReplyDelete
  6. Considering the History Channel has very little to do with history, this program was above their usual low standards.Still the obvious mistakes and omissions were inexcusable. Among those I noticed are the following. Stonewall Jackson did not die at Chancellorsville. He was wounded there by his own troops and soon died of pneumonia. Lee was in the north in a desperate attempt to threaten DC in order to draw the north away from it's siege of Vicksburg. An opportunity to illustrate the condition of the Southern troops was passed over by not mentioning the initial clash of troops occurred when the Southern troops were in Gettysburg looking for a reported supply of shoes, which they desperately needed.
    And the statement that the slaves who were traveling on the underground railroad fled so not to be captured by the Southern troops may have been a fear of the slaves in flight, but the Southern troops had far more to deal with than rounding up run away slaves.
    And the worst omission of all, noticeable to even a Texas such as myself, was no mention given to Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain who brilliantly defended Little Round Top. Chamberlain is quite often and rightly called the hero of Gettysburg.
    At least this so called documentary was no where near as pathetic as the "Story of Us" series.

    Texas History Buff

    ReplyDelete
  7. Thanks for your comments. I was not as upset about the Chancellorsville reference. It was close enough to the truth. He was mortally wounded in the battle.

    As far as the slaves, if I am a slave and a Rebel army is coming down the road, I am high-tailing it out of there!

    The reference to the Underground Railroad was superfluous because with the start of the war, the Fugitive Slave Law was obviously not being enforced.

    As far as Chamberlain, one of my main complaints with the program was it proclaimed itself to focus on some individual soldiers, but also gave an overview of the battle (which makes sense). If you decide to bite off that task, you look like a fool by not mentioning Little Round Top.

    signed - War Movie Buff

    ReplyDelete
  8. All in all I do not think the program was a total dud. It was definitely worth watching. I was surprised with the inclusion of Col. James Wallace. That possibly will bring awareness to some that slavery was not the sole issue which started the Civil War although it was root cause of all the issues that did cause the war...if that makes any sense. The slavery issue was the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.
    Slavery, understandably, is a touchy subject but it was an unresolvable problem that was back burnered at the founding of this country which ultimately led to the Civil War.
    I think it is a shame that our history does not honestly deal with this. It is a shameful part of our heritage, as was our treatment of the Native Americans.
    Back to the Gettysburg documentary; I think the makers of this program fell into the trap of trying to appeal to too broad of an audience.
    If they had only included Little Round Top, I think I could ignore any of the other little things I noticed.

    Texas History Buff

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with everything you say, which means your comments are brilliant!

    signed - War Movie Buff

    ReplyDelete
  10. I guess that makes you brilliant as well! It's been good chatting with you.

    Texas History Buff

    ReplyDelete
  11. Likewise. Don't be a stranger, pardna. Do you have a blog or site?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Nice blog, although I'd have to point out there were several innaccuracies in the uniforms. Yellow stripes on an infantry sergeant, no red piping on the artillery Union units for example. Overall tho, I as just happy THC finally, FINALLY has some new stuff on the Civil War. It was about what I expected too, a lot of Hollywood sprinkled with a little history and made for the XBOX 360 Call of Duty crowd. My hope is it triggers the kiddies to actually learn about this segment of our American History, beyond a 2 hr. "The Civil War Private Ryan style". I give it a C rating but hope enough people want this sort of thing THC will move beyond IRT, Modern Marvels, and Swamp people. Probably the best part of it for me was they talked about some events not normally mentioned in discussions about Gettysburg. You almost never hear about Culp's Hill or the railroad cut.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thanks for the input.

    We adults will have to get used to this new style of documentary. The torch has been passed to a new generation and if this is what it takes to keep history alive, I can live with it. From personal experience teaching Military History in high school I can assure you the younger generation demands pizazz in its war movies and docs. You can bet we will eventually see "All Quiet on the Western Front: The Extreme Version".

    ReplyDelete
  14. No, I do not have a site or blog. I rarely participate in any on line blogs etc. I was curious if there were any reviews on the Gettysburg documentary and found this site.
    I read your review and was impressed.
    I will be checking in occasionally to see what is being discussed.
    I think JB from WV has made some really good observations. JB must also be brilliant.
    Catch you later

    Texas History Buff

    ReplyDelete
  15. I was very disappointed in "Gettysburg" shown on The History Channel. My grandfather was wounded at Gettysburg. He was a flag bearer with Hood's Texas Brigade. I didn't hear one singe mention of Hoods Texas Brigade. The movie was given rave reviews in the Houston Chronicle, but I was not at all impressed. Houston

    ReplyDelete
  16. "You can bet we will eventually see "All Quiet on the Western Front: The Extreme Version"."

    TMC had one docudrama that was very well made: "Battle of the Somme: Great Battles", which was very well made and in this non-glamorous style.

    Gettysburg was meant to show "boots on the ground" first hand accounts which the talking heads gave the IRT/Am Pickers crowd a simple verbal retelling of the overall battle. Sure, no mention of Texas Brigade, but no mention of General Hancock. Meade and Lee are barely mentioned but this wasn't meant to be a grand strategic overview of the battle. Dawes' nighttime skirmish would barely register as decisive, but is shown anyway.

    I'm partially defending the documentary because it was a commendable effort, but was limited by how much it could show and how it wanted to show to the audience. It was advertised as "things you didn't know about Gettysburg" which meant things you didn't know about Gettysburg from watching the Ted Turner movie. Watch it, then read a real Gettysburg book. I don't expect TV to tell me everything about a battle or history.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I have to agree for the most part. I would just repeat that if you are going to do any overviewing of the battle, you need to go all the way and not leave out key events. I realize the omissions may have been due to time constraints. How much longer would it have taken to mention Stuarts name when referring to the cavalry situation? And, by the way, why even mention the poor performance of the Rebel cavalry? None of the eight figures were related to that.

    I have noticed that most of the people who are complaining are people who already know about what was left out. It is commendable that they are looking out for the more ignorant viewers who did not know what they were missing. I also want to commend the Scotts for leaving out key aspects of the battle to encourage the American Pickers crowd to read a book about Gettysburg. In fact, I just have made a huge investment in a publisher of books about Gettysburg anticipating the flood of book orders. See you on my yacht, fellas! (Just kidding, I love your optimism and wish it had that effect.)

    ReplyDelete

Please fell free to comment. I would love to hear what you think and will respond.