Years ago, when I was a lad of about 12, my family took me to the Gettysburg battlefield. I remember being taken around the park by one of the tour guides you can still hire and hearing him tell about having been there as a boy when the 75th reunion was held. His description of the climax of that scene from 1938 — when the pitiful remnants reached across the stone wall and shook hands on July 3, 1938 has stayed with me over thirty years. Three years ago I dragged my family, probably protesting more than they cared to admit, through the somber rainy cold of a March afternoon over that same ground. I remember explaining to my eldest boy — then only ten about the fearful fight fought on the ground of Devil's Den, and the slow lumbering charge launched by a desperate Lee against he entrenched Union position. I thought I saw a glint in his that looked vaguely familiar — the same I wish I had seen that I had felt a few decades earlier. One never knows what sort of an impact one has on children of that age. I was surprised when he selected from the rack of postcards one that depicted a solitary soldier backdropped by the setting sun. Gettysburg had touched him and I was glad. When word came out that Turner Broadcasting was making GETTYSBURG, I paid little heed. I don't like Ted and after living with his CNN people for eight months during the Gulf War, doubted that anyone associated with him could tell a story correctly. I had my own vision of what happened those fateful July days and doubted they could come close to capturing it. I was wrong. Let's start off with a simple declarative sentence. GETTYSBURG is the best Civil War film ever made. Period. Having said that let's take a closer look at what we have in the film and what we don't. Back in the days of Pericles, it was customary for Greek writers such as Sophocles, Aeschylus and Euripides to present plays to the general population. These dramas, almost all drawn from the myths, legends and stories that made up the Hellenic popular culture, were intended to tell a familiar story. The audience did not go to see Oedipus Rex because they had never heard of that ill fated king. They went to see Oedipus Rex to see how Sophocles would tell the story and what new insights they might garner from it. Gettysburg, usually described as the most important battle in American history, is unquestionably part of the American culture. Most persons, even those to whom all things historical or military are anathema, know the general outlines of this battle and are aware that it is considered the turning point in the war. (Pace historians — we're talking popular conception, not historical reality). The best way to view the movie Gettysburg is to treat it as a retelling of an old, familiar tale. It is not intended as a documentary, nor, sadly, does it avoid trampling on historical facts when it is convenient to the telling of the story. The perspective is afforded by the late Michael Shaara's novel The Killer Angels. Shaara's Pulitizer Prize winning fiction is written as a Greek tragedy and the film makers, inasmuch as they were able to, retained a great deal of it. All Greek tragedies had as their principal dramatic element hubris. Variously described as arrogance or false pride, hubris was a character flaw that was possessed by the protagonist. The flaw prevented the protagonist from seeing an objective reality, when realization finally struck, the result was disaster. In the movie, hubris is possessed not by an individual, but by the collective Southern leadership — a strand of arrogant pride that extends through every Confederate general and down through the ranks. This mutual hubris leads them to attack, regardless of the tactical situation — because their opponents, the Union, are not worthy of their contempt. "In the center they will break," says Lee with the certainty of papal dogma. "We ought not to be stopped by a few dismounted cavalry," says Heth. George Pickett yips with glee when told he is going to lead his impossible attack, while Isaac Trimble complains to Lee about the lack of aggressiveness on Richard Ewell's part. The Southern commanders, it seems don't have anything else on their mind but attacking, and they make the fatal error of thinking their opponents are cowards or fools or both. There is one Southern general though who can see more clearly than most. South Carolina's James Longstreet, well portrayed by Tom Berenger, fully appreciates the situation. But like Cassandra, whom the gods gave the gift of perfect prophecy then punished by assuring no one would ever believe her, he is condemned to know the future but remain powerless to effect it. Throughout the film it is Longstreet arguing against the others, cautioning them against the trap they were walking into "If the enemy is there it is because he wants you to attack" and he who is unheeded. Trapped, Longstreet finds himself forced to give orders he does not like and required to confront the consequences of decisions he does not agree with. It is Longstreet who must order John Bell Hood into an attack neither he nor Hood want to make, and Longstreet who makes the visit to the hospital where the wounded Hood lies. Similarly it is Longstreet who must order Pickett's Charge, which he believes to be foolhardy, able only to nod his head, when Pickett requests approval to start the advance — and Longstreet who meets the survivors. Even Longstreet's actor-spy will not heed his warnings. These are realities that Lee, who typifies the Southerner attitude, is able to avoid until he is confronted with Pickett's mournful "General Lee I have no division!" Union cavalry commander John Buford serves to underscore and contrast Longstreet's plight. Buford stands atop Seminary Ridge and has his own prophetic vision of foolhardy attacks on entrenched positions on the high ground. His determined speech to one of his brigade commanders, full of bitterness at the stupidity of those who praise the useless slaughter of men as valiant, is one of the best ones in the movie. Buford escapes Longstreet's anguish because Buford can do something about his future — "We can deny the enemy the high ground." Buford's grim determination is seen in the face of every Union commander throughout the movie. Union commanders possess none of the pleasure from warfare that Pickett typifies, nor is there a "love" of combat on their part. In fact theynever once seem to smile. War may be a grand lark for most of the Southern commanders, but not for these men. The Union officers are courageous and workmanlike. The only luxury they seem to allow themselves is the recurring mantra "This is good ground." The film, following Shaara's novel, goes on to recount the battle of Gettysburg, focusing on three engagements, one from each day of the battle. The first day is devoted to Buford's decision to fight at Gettysburg, the second to the Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top and the third to Pickett's Charge. While these three engagements are important and even critical to the battle itself, one of my complaints is that you can leave the theater thinking that the entire battle of Gettysburg consisted of only these three elements. All three contain emotion laden scenes which I will not ruin for you by recounting in detail. The battle scenes, conducted by historical reenactors, are the finest ever put on film. While there is remarkably little blood and too much overemphasis on cannon fire, the flavor and character of mid-19th Century warfare comes through. You can finally see how close together the opposing ranks were, the ragged and volley fire and appreciate the sort of nuances that even when mentioned in books are so easy to miss. The visual spectacle of Pickett's Charge when some 12,000 reenactors step off the line is worth the price of admission by itself. The acting is about par for the course both Jeff Daniels and Berenger stand head and shoulder above the rest. One note worth mentioning is that Martin Sheen's portrayal of Robert E. Lee, which has been described as "sleepwalking" by those wishing to be kind, may not have been all that bad. Shaara's novel posits that Lee spent most of the time period around the battle suffering from ischemic heart disease. Assuming Sheen read the book — a safe bet — then his portrayal may have been that of "Lee with heart disease" rather than "Lee the vigorous sixty year old." Gettysburg, of course, does have some problems. The speechifying gets to be too a bit much after awhile. There are events like Reynolds' death or the engagement at Devil's Den whose importance are not always explained. While Chamberlain's defense of Little Round Top is nothing short of brilliant, and his bayonet charge a well calculated gamble, Shaara's book at least mentions the actions of the 1st Minnesota that day and their bayonet charge. In the film this heroic act is is completely ignored. There are also some problems with historical fact, the most glaring involving Maine's favorite Civil War veteran. One easily gets the false impression that not only did Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain's holding of Little Round Top singlehandedly save the second day, but also that he rushed to the Union center in time for Pickett's Charge, thus completely ignoring the fact that Chamberlain and his men were nowhere near the Union Center during Pickett's charge. Nor did Chamberlain make the antislavery speech to the mutineers of the 2nd Maine that converted them all to the "cause." Similarly the confrontation between Lee and Stuart in which the wayward cavalry commander is given a good dressing down by Marse Robert simply never happened. The movie lists numerous historical advisers but they seem to have found it advisable to say nothing. Despite these flaws, Gettysburg is a definite must see — three or four times would be moderate. It's more than worth the price. GETTYSBURG Directed by Ronald F. Maxwell Score by Randy Edelman Starring: Tom Berenger as James Longstreet, Jeff Daniels as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee, Sam Elliot as John Buford. 254 minutes. Currently available in most discount stores for about $20.00 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