100 BEST WAR MOVIES: 13. Gettysburg (1993)

 

           “Gettysburg” is a war movie that began as a TV miniseries produced by Ted Turner. The finished product pleased the millionaire so much that he decided to release it to movie theaters. It may be the longest American movie (254 minutes) ever to appear in theaters. It appeared in a limited number of cinemas and did not recoup its cost, but the publicity was golden and when it was first shown on Turner Broadcasting Network, it was the most viewed basic cable program up to that time. The movie is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning novel The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara. The title was changed to the battle name after it was discovered that potential viewers thought the original title indicated a motorcycle gang movie. The National Park Service allowed filming on site, although much of the action was lensed at a nearby farm. The film made use of over 5,000 reenactors. There are also cameos by Ted Turner and Ken Burns. Turner is killed during Pickett’s Charge. Burns plays an aide to Hancock.

            The movie opens with a map tracing the paths of the Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac as a voice-over explains the strategic situation in June, 1863. A lone horseman spies the Union army on the march northward. He turns out to be an actor/spy named Harrison who works for Confederate General Longstreet (Tom Berenger). He reports the surprising news that the Union army is much closer than is believed. Longstreet passes the information on to a skeptical Lee (who has been blinded by the loss of contact with Stuart’s cavalry) and Lee decides to concentrate the army at a sleepy little crossroads named Gettysburg.

         The movie jumps between the two armies. It concentrates on the command decisions of Lee and Meade. There are several arcs. One is Gen. Longstreet (Tom Berenger) and his disagreement with Lee on strategy.  This will culminate with Longstreet’s reluctance to launch Picket’s Charge.

 

Another is the focus on the 20^th Maine Regiment led by Col. Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels). He is handed a hot potato in the form of some mutineers from another Maine regiment. As commander of the 20th Maine he is tasked with taking the mutineers along and shooting them if necessary. He gives an inspired speech about the importance of the upcoming battle (“we are here to set men free”) and his empathetic approach convinces most of the unhappy crew to pitch in. They are bound for Little Round Top where the unit will have to hold the Union left against numerous Confederate assaults.  

           Those two arcs stand out among the scenes that tell the story of the battle. The first day concentrates on Buford’s cavalry holding off the Rebel infantry until the first Union corps arrives. The Confederate units happen to come in at the right locations to force the Union regiments back to Cemetery Ridge. The second day is basically about the Confederate attacks on the Union left. This is dominated by the fight for Little Round Top.

 

The third day is dedicated to Picket’s Charge and it is epic. No use of CGI, instead the movie took advantage of the reenactor community. The slight downside is you have some overage and overweight soldiers. They die well compared to most war movie extras. Along with the 5,000 reenactors, there are 30 cannons for the largest cannonade ever to take place in America. There is a long stretch featuring tracking shots that has no dialogue and relies on the beating of drums that evolves into the score. The Rebels march stoically into a metal storm of first shrapnel, then canister, and finally volleys. One has to admire the dedication of those men.

 

Along the way, mingled with the bid set pieces are some greatest hits of the battle. Lee scolds Stuart for being away for so long when he needed the eyes of his cavalry. Meade meets with his generals on the first night to discuss whether to stay in spite of the butt whipping. Rebel General Armstead (Louis Jordan in a posthumous performance) pines over his best friend Winfield Hancock, who is across the field.           

ACTING:   B                

ACTION:   A+ (8/10)

ACCURACY: A      

PLOT:  B                

REALISM:   A+ 

CINEMATOGRAPHY:   A

SCORE:   A+

SCENE:  the fight on Little Round Top

QUOTE:  Chamberlain:  BAYONETS!!!


HISTORICAL ACCURACY: It amazes me that some critics question the accuracy of the movie. Trust me, you are not going to get more accuracy than this movie. The small faults can be excused by the fact that the movie is technically based on a novel, but the novel is a masterpiece of imagining around historical facts. Shaara imagines conversations and thoughts of the historical figures that populate the movie, but all of it rings true. The movie is faithful to the book and few have questioned the accuracy and authenticity of the book.

     The Battle of Gettysburg is probably the most important battle ever fought on American soil. It lasted three days and involved well over 100,000 men. It would be impossible for any movie to cover the battle in detail. The screenwriter wisely focuses on one key action per day. Buford’s holding action, the defense of Little Round Top, and Pickett’s Charge are adeptly reenacted. The three set pieces are much better and more enjoyable than any documentary could do.

     The strategy and tactics are true to the battle. The command decisions are accurate. The movie does a great job of showing the hows and whys of the battle. There is no historical revisionism here. The motivations of both sides and of the individual leaders are clear, although the movie can be faulted for downplaying the South’s desire to maintain slavery.

     As far as historical realism, anyone who is familiar with historical reenactors knows they are obsessed with authenticity. “Gettysburg” makes fantastic use of this resource. CGI cannot compare to the real thing and reenactors are as close to the real thing as you are going to get. These are people who insist on having the correct buttons on their uniforms. The participation of over 5,000 is incredible. This movie is their shining moment and they have a lot to be proud of. Their participation takes the movie to unparalleled heights of accuracy in tactics, uniforms and equipment, and soldier life. One example will suffice. There is a moment in the Little Round Top scene where a soldier does not use the ramrod to pack down the powder and ball, instead he taps the butt of the rifle on the ground. Only a reenactor would know Civil War soldiers sometimes did this in battle. I have to say that although I still do not know how they decide who will die, these reenactors really stepped up their game in dying. The deaths are not cheesy or ridiculous. Also, some of the reenactors seemingly were given speaking parts and they do a commendable job for amateurs.

CRITIQUE: “Gettysburg” is not a perfect war movie. It has some flaws. The acting is spotty. It appears some of the actors are not motivated by the made-for-TV nature of the production and perhaps their salaries matched their performances. Louis Jordan in particular chews the scenery. This dynamic makes the good performances stand out. Jeff Daniels deserved an Academy Award nomination. Joshua Chamberlain was virtually unknown before the movie and Daniels delivered him the fame he deserves. (This reminds me of how “Band of Brothers” made Dick Winters famous.) Chamberlain was a remarkable man and one of the great soldiers of the Civil War. Daniels is brilliant in his portrayal of the reluctant warrior who rises to leadership in the cauldron of battle. He nails the character’s humanity. Tom Berenger’s Longstreet is properly morose (although the movie does not mention the recent deaths of three of his children) and tactiturn. Lang gets Pickett’s flamboyance down pat. Sheen is not great, but his seemingly lackluster performance would have been more acceptable if the movie had alluded to his heart disease.

     The movie has been criticized for its pro-South slant. This reflects the book. Shaara obviously found the “Lost Cause” appealing. It must have been fun imagining the stilted speaking style of the Southern aristocrats. The movie actually edits the speechifying commendably. The brushing over of slavery as the key cause of the conflict is upsetting. Longstreet’s brigade commanders discuss the war around the camp fire. They are all agreed that the war is about states’ rights and Northern aggression.

     The sound effects are superb. The sounds of battle are realistic. The cannon fire in particular (while not nearly loud enough) is as close to being there as you can get. 30 authentic cannon were used to replicate the largest cannonade in America. More importantly, the score by Randy Edelman is one of the best in war movie history. The music matches the mood perfectly. Do not forget that the score was meant for a TV movie. That is hard to fathom.

     The combat is well done, thanks again to the reenactors. Unfortunately, due to the PG nature of TV movies (at least ones made in the 1990s), the violence is not graphically realistic. There is little bloodshed. An R-rated version would have been awesome. There is one cool shot where some Rebels get a face full of grapeshot, but there is no spray of blood. The hand to hand combat on Little Round Top is edge of your seat.

     The movie does a great job in teaching the battle. The narration and map at the beginning establish the situation and the dialogue makes it clear what the big picture is throughout the battle. I can think of no other war movie that attempts to tell the story of a specific historical battle that does a better job in replacing the written word. It is superior to “Waterloo”, “Midway”, “Pearl Harbor”, etc. in this respect.

CONCLUSION: “Gettysburg” has been harshly judged by critics who are not familiar with the Civil War, The Killer Angels, or the way people talked and groomed in the 1860s. I’ll grant you the beards look fake, but if you stick around for the closing credits, you will see that the actors look a lot like their characters. Even a minor figure like Harrison is a lookalike. Such fidelity to accuracy was not necessary, but indicates the care with which the movie was made. If you criticize the screenplay, you are essentially criticizing a Pulitzer Prize winning novel. The movie follows the book very closely. The dialogue is almost word for word from the book, which is a good thing. The scenes in the book are replicated in the movie with the only significant difference between the book and the movie being the fact that the movie deletes some scenes. It could be argued that the movie improves on the book. There is little reason to read the novel if you see the movie.