MovieChat Forums > The Red Badge of Courage (1974) Discussion > I saw this one the first time around in ...

I saw this one the first time around in 1974....

posted 12 years ago by lvrepoman
4 replies | jump to latest

...and again tonight, on the Military Channel, 38 years later. I was only 10 or 11 years old the first time I saw it, so I did not watch it with a very critical eye. Generally, for a 1974 production, it seemed pretty good watching it today. I think if they were to refilm the story again now that would be able to find many more re-enactors willing to participate, so the regiment could be a little more fully fleshed-out. No doubt a film produced today would have all sorts of CGI and other effects to help it along as well. But on the whole, I found this treatment to be very satisfactory.

I wonder if any of the rest of you were wondering about the identity of the Union Major General in the movie. The actor is wearing a lot of makeup, and seems to be intended to resemble some actual person. Given the approximate time and place of story, my thought is that he is meant to be Major General Butler, who was bald and had great bags under his eyes. From what I have read, he was no charismatic leader of men, either, which seems to be in keeping with the way the actor plays his roll.

Anyone else out there come to the same conclusion? Any other candidates? Or is it all fictional? I'm sure there are some civil war historians who have much insight as to the answers to these questions than I do.

"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."--Pat Novak

[–] FrankBeachem 12 years ago

Check the link below for an interesting summary:

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/CRANE/chancellorsville/section2.html

With Crane's hometown being Port Jervis, NY, it would appear the fictional 304th New York was based on the real 124th NY regiment, which was assigned under the 1st Brigade (Franklin), 3rd Division (Whipple, Graham), III Corps

Note, the Colonel (regimental commander) of the 124th NY was A Van Horn Ellis. The brigade was actually under the command of ColonelEmlen Franklin, and the Division was under Gen. Charles Graham and Amien Whipple, so that may be the cast of characters to pick from for the General's meeting that Fleming came upon.

Cheers,
Frank Beachem

[–] lvrepoman 12 years ago

Thanks for the very interesting link. I had full confidence when I made my original post that someone would come back with an answer for me very quickly.

I've always found the Civil War to be a be a very tiresome study (or maybe I'm just too dull) for a reason illustrated here. As opposed to say, the Mexican War, where the lines kept moving more or less in one direction, those damn Civil War generals just kept fighting over the same ground, over and over again! The Army of Northern Virginia and the Army of the Potomac, for instance, fought all of their battles in a relatively small area.

I've been reading Grants memoirs, and although the war in the west was fought over a wider area, they kept going back and forth, covering a lot of the same ground. I'll defy anyone to keep track of who held what area when. It's all very confusing when trying to construct a mental map. As the writer in the link you provided notes, even the soldiers who fought the battles didn't really know where they were fighting.

There is one thing that bother's me about the idea that the battle portrayed in the novel was Chancellorsville (as is stated in the link). I thought Chancellorsville was a Union defeat. The final part of the Crane story shows the regiment in a decisive victory. Maybe their charge was part of a small victory in a major defeat, or maybe it was the action that kept the battle from being a complete and total Union defeat. I don't know. Like I say, the Civil War mostly just boggles my mind.

In any event, thanks for your post. I'm always amazed at how well Civil War experts remember these things so well.

"He was running around like a rooster in a barnyard full of ducks."--Pat Novak

[–] FrankBeachem 12 years ago

lvrepoman:

Concur with your consideration that the movie appears to glorify victory for the union in an otherwise Confederate victory. Would be kinda like a movie focusing on the success of a reb regiment charging and forcing away the Iron Brigade at Gettysburg, on day one. Rah rah for the Rebs!!, right? Heh heh...

I love studying the civil war; there are so many parallels you can draw about history and you can visit so many of the places where the action happened.

If you really want to see the Battle of Chancellorsville on screen, watch Gods and Generals, which displays the fullness of the battle towards the end of the movie.

Cheers,
Frank Beachem

[–] knightwind88 11 years ago

Gods and Generals was one of the worst movies ever made. It does not display the "fullness" of he battle at all, only concentrates on one part. Nothing about the action over at Frederaksburg or Salem Church. Nothing about the action around Catherine Furnace. Its all the overdone Jackson flank attack. Thanks to Gods and Generals there will probably never be another large-scale Civil War production mounted again. Speilberg's Lincoln doesn't count since the war is just a backdrop to the story of Lincoln and his cabinet.