"Tricky" was my first thought, when asked to write a review of the film GETTYSBURG. Not because expressing an opinion on a motion picture is difficult — it isn't — but in defining exactly what is to be reviewed and keeping the proper perspective. On July 1st, 1863 the Army of Northern Virginia under the command of General Robert E. Lee ran headlong into General George Meade's Army of the Potomac at a quiet little town in southern Pennsylvania which was to be catapulted into historical prominence for all time. The battle of Gettysburg is, without a doubt, the single most famous military encounter of the American Civil War and has spawned enough volumes of writing to fill a library. The aspects and events of this battle have been considered, cross-considered and reconsidered up to and beyond the point of absurdity. It would not be an exaggeration to say that Gettysburg has generated more "What if..." conjecture than any other battle in history. However, that is not what this review is about. In 1974 a novel, The Killer Angels, was published and won a Pulitzer Prize for its author Michael Shaara. It is an excellent work of historical fiction which tells the story of Gettysburg from a viewpoint that places the reader mostly, but not completely, on the Confederate side of the lines in the company of Generals Lee and Longstreet. The book maintains a fairly high degree of historical accuracy while filling in and fleshing out the principal characters involved. Having sold over a million copies and receiving high praise from a host of critics, it was a natural selection for a major motion picture. Indeed, such a film has been made and simply titled GETTYSBURG. If all this appears so straightforward, why then do I say that writing a review of this film is "tricky"? Because we must weigh and balance historical facts (not to mention endless opinions) against this film which is a screenplay adaptation of a historical fiction novel. In other words, GETTYSBURG is not, and was never intended to be, a documentary on the Battle of Gettysburg. Then there are a few other minor problems. In making any historical motion picture, just how "authentic" can it stand to be? The characters portrayed in GETTYSBURG were real, flesh and blood, breathing people — but they lived in a completely different era with the thoughts, feelings and speech of 19th century folk. To quote Michael Shaara, "It was a naοve and sentimental time, and men spoke in windy phrases." Therefore, what we are seeing on the cinema screen is an interpretation — adjusted for the Twentieth Century audience — of what was done and said on those hot and humid Pennsylvania hillsides one hundred and thirty-two years ago. The film was shot on location at the 3,850 acre Gettysburg National Military Park which almost surrounds the town of Gettysburg. When we see George Pickett's men charging the Union lines on Cemetery Ridge, that is the actual ground over which the battle was fought. For me, this gave the film a quality of authenticity — a Blessing, if you like — that may well have affected the cast, crew and especially the Civil War reenactors. The battle of Gettysburg has been compared to a three act play and so is the presentation of the film. In a nutshell, it is a telling of the story of the conflict and contention between Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Confederate Army, and his tactical commander, James Longstreet. Lee was resolved that "The enemy is here" and that Gettysburg was to be the final and decisive battle of the war. Longstreet, on the other hand, tried in vain to convince Lee that this was not a good idea and was doomed to failure. Obviously, Longstreet was quite correct. There are several other subplots which deserve praise. If it were not for the clear-headed thinking of General John Buford and the bravery of his cavalry on the first day, it is likely that the "Great Battle" would never have taken place at Gettysburg — it might have been fought at Baltimore or perhaps Washington DC. On the second day of the battle, Colonel Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and his small 20th Maine Regiment held the Union's extreme left flank at Little Round Top — even after running out of ammunition — against an onslaught of Confederate infantry charges . Actor Jeff Daniels' portrayal of Colonel Chamberlain is nothing short of superb. Martin Sheen is a fine actor with many excellent films to his credit, but his portrayal of General Lee is, at times, a bit strange. We know that Lee was not in good health, but Sheen's Marse Robert sometimes comes across as a man on the verge of a Valium overdose. But in the end, who knows? There were no CNN film crews at Gettysburg in the summer of 1863. Other noteworthy performances would include: Tom Berenger's James Longstreet — pensive, frustrated and ever duty bound. Stephen Lang's George Pickett — flamboyant, overconfident and in the end, utterly shattered. Sam Elliott looks absolutely nothing like John Buford, but his sensitive portrayal conveys the fine mind and gritty determination of this heroic General in a very satisfying manner. How "realistic" is the film? It varies. The Confederate soldiers appear a little too well fed — but then, where are you going to get 13,000 anorexic stunt-qualified extras? Little Round Top was mostly stripped of trees in 1863, but the film shows the battle as taking place in thick forest. My biggest objection though, was the way in which battlefield wounds were simulated — or not, to be more exact. The Civil War infantry weapons fired massive .50 caliber lead slugs (Miniι Balls) which did horrendous damage to a human target and the close range artillery firing "canister" shot must have shredded bodies like a food processor. This is not shown at all. Cannon go BOOM and troops fall down on cue — I don't think so. Probably, from a film-making standpoint, disintegrating bodies present an expensive and technically difficult problem — not to mention, it might have gained the film an "R" rating which the producers didn't really want. The actual Battle of Gettysburg lasted three days and was quite complex — yet, Ronald F. Maxwell's direction and Kees Van Oostrum's photography present the story in a very coherent and understandable manner. To be sure, there are any number of historic events which are never mentioned in the film, but they are not necessary in the telling of this story. This is a motion picture of huge scale in every respect and is well served by Randy Edelman's magnificent musical score. As a boy, I grew up on a farm about forty miles north of Gettysburg and visited the Military Park more times than I can count. To me, the heat of the July sun, the soft smell of the grass and the dust of old Pennsylvania dirt roads are all very tangible — and the film conveys this with gratifying realism. GETTYSBURG is a monumental work, highly charged with emotion and action. It will no doubt be regarded as one of the best ever Civil War films and thanks to its release on video, can be viewed and enjoyed time after time. On a rating scale of 1 to 5, I will give this film a solid 4.5. Back to Cry Havoc #10 Table of Contents Back to Cry Havoc List of Issues Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List © Copyright 1994 by David W. Tschanz. This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com