I recently reviewed “Gettysburg” as #46 in the 100 Greatest War Movies list. It gave me the idea to reread the book The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara to compare the book to the movie. The novel came out in 1974 and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction a year later. In 1993, Ted Turner released the movie “Gettysburg” based on the book. The film was written by Ronald Maxwell.
The movie parallels the book extremely closely. Almost all of Maxwell’s dialogue is word for word from the book. All of the scenes are from the book. I have seen few movies that are more faithful to their source material than “Gettysburg”. Since the book is a Pulitzer Prize winner, this makes the script for the movie outstanding. If you have not seen the movie, read my review at . Since the movie is so close to the book, I’ll concentrate on what the movie leaves out.
The book delves much more into Lee’s heart condition. This leads to exhaustion and poor decisions. The movie has little on this theme. It also goes further in some scenes. For instance, the book goes beyond the death of Reynolds on the first day. We read about Lee sending orders to take Cemetery Hill “if practicable”. This makes Lee’s reaction to Trimble’s complaint of Ewell’s lack of initiative more understandable. The novel includes an entire chapter on Lee’s thoughts during the first day. The movie limits itself to getting in the minds of Longstreet and Chamberlain. The book gives more back-story for their characters. We learn that Chamberlain’s father had referred to man as a “murdering angel” and he had turned it into an oration entitled “the Killer Angels”. (The movie script has Kilrain using the phrase.) Similar to Lee’s heart condition, Shaara explains that Longstreet’s moroseness is partly attributable to the deaths of his three children.
The book has a whole chapter on Longstreet talking to Fremantle including the need for trench warfare. Later, they discuss tactics. Lee meets with Ewell and Early to discuss the situation at the end of the first day. The movie deletes this and picks up with Trimble’s rant. Fremantle, who appears briefly in the movie, gets his own chapter where he likens the South to England. He (and Shaara) conveniently overlook that England was very anti-slavery. Both the book and the movie sympathize with the South and push the “states’ rights” argument.
The book spends more time on Longstreet’s thoughts which helps when viewing the movie to understand where he is coming from. Not that the movie is totally unclear on this. We also learn Longstreet’s reaction to the second days’ fighting after he visits Hood in the hospital. It turns out that he is not a big fan of Stuart.
Several scenes in the movie get post scripts in the book. For instance, we find out what Chamberlain is thinking the morning after.
Basically, if you watch the movie you do not really need to read the book with one big caveat. The chapters on Pickett’s Charge are amazing at taking you into the action. The movie does not give a good idea of what the men are experiencing. Although the viewpoint is General Armistead’s, he is on foot leading his brigade. This means we get a foot soldiers perspective of the carnage.
My advice would be to watch the movie and read the chapters on Pickett's Charge.
Interesting and yes, I would like to read it but I don't know when. It would certainly be easier to follow than the movie. I'm not sure what to think of taking dialogue word for word. Guess Shaara is particularly good at dialogue writing.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure they stayed as true to the book in Cold Mountain's case. We will soon find out.
I ordered "Bomber" btw.
I've got your review posted on the reviews page and will have a snippet posted on the war blog for Dec. 8. Thanks for participating and we hope to see you in the new year for WWI!
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say what Shaara would have thought of the dialogue as he died long ago. His son Jeff has acrried on the legacy of historical novels and wrote the prequel to "Gettysburg" - "Gods and Generals". He does not have the talent of his father, unfortunately.
ReplyDeleteThanks for helping me with my essay, i didn't read the book or watch the movie! LOL.
ReplyDeleteYou probably noticed that you don't have to do both. However, speaking as a teacher, you should have done one or the other!
ReplyDeleteI recall the treatment of the main characters being somewhat simplified and repetitive, which works better than it sounds but is probably a sign that the author would prefer to overstretch what little historic insight we have into these people's inner thoughts rather than make something up to fill in the gaps.
ReplyDeleteFor this reason the Longstreet character seems to be possessed by post-war Longstreet, as that is the man who left us his remembrances and analysis of the war. His character predicts that the Southern populace will blame him for the bad outcome of Gettysburg because they will be unwilling to blame General Lee.
The real Robert E. Lee did not talk much about his war experiences so the fictional Lee is mostly motivated by his ill health, as that is often the historical excuse offered whenever General Lee or his army fail to fight as vigorously or as smartly as the armchair generals would prefer (with some justification, to be fair, but some people seem reluctant to believe that Lee is could make bad decisions now and then, or take risks that did not pan out).
Book Chamberlain is perhaps the character that stands farthest from the historical records. Perhaps Mr. Shaara needed an everyman for us to identify with and feared that the real Chamberlain would be too stuffy or weird. Or maybe there is so much historical record for Chamberlain that Shaara had the luxury of picking what he wanted to use.
It's an enjoyable book but I think this is one of those rare cases where the movie surpasses it.
I agree with your analysis of the Longstreet character. Shaara certainly gives us the Longstreet that he himself created. I think this is the only battle where Lee's heart problems was used as an excuse for his performance. I don't remember historians using it for any of his other battles. I have not read on Chamberlain, but I was not aware that his depiction was inaccurate. He was a very learned man so that seems to fit him in the movie and book. The movie is certainly faithful to the pro-Southern vibe of the book.
DeleteWith Chamberlain I was particularly thinking about something he wrote in his book "The Passing of the Armies," which I admittedly may misunderstand or may be taking out of context:
Delete"Curious people often ask the question whether in battle we are not affected by fear, so that our actions are influenced by it; and some are prompt to answer, 'Yes, surely we are, and anybody who denies it is a braggart or a liar.' I say to such, 'Speak for yourselves.'"
In the case of General Lee I specifically recall hearing illness as the reason why he had not attacked Grant when Grant's army was in a vulnerable position on the North Anna. I'd thought I'd heard bad health offered as an explanation for some other actions but I may simply be misremembering. It's a good reminder to me of the dangers of talking off-the-cuff.