too many speeches!!


anybody else feel like this movie was just speeches and *beep* battle scenes?

reply

In the preface to the book, Michael Shaara explains that he actually toned down the wordiness of the speeches:

"I have changed some of the language. It was a naive and sentimental time, and men spoke in windy phrases. I thought it necessary to update some of the words so that the religiosity and naivete of the time, which were genuine, would not seem too quaint to the modern ear. I hope I will be forgiven for that."

Who knows how speechified the book and movie would have turned out if Shaara hadn't done that!

reply

damn, really didn't expect it to be on purpose. I just feel like the movie could have used a conversation or two.

reply

It was also made before the current trend of film scenes that take place in 3-second bits with snappy dialogue. It was not only about a time when in reality there were more monologues - it was made at a time when in movies there were more monologues. Things changed in filmmaking right about the time this film was made.

reply

Certain monologues are kind of necessary.
Chamberlain's why-we-fight explanation to the mutineers was necessary. Armstead's & Hancock's own soliloquys were too, if only to expound on the depth of their friendship.
And, of course, Longstreet's foreshadowing bit to Harrison after Harrison wishes to join in Pickett's Charge.

The Chamberlain & Kilrain bit about "killer angels" etc could've possibly been left out. Same with Sam Elliot's character's bit about what would happen if their cavalry unit didn't take the high ground.
The bit about Tom Chamberlain speaking to the Confederate POWs is borderline. It serves as expository dialogue to those viewers who don't know anything about the Civil War. That written, it could've served to make up for deleting the Confederate officers' talk w/ British Colonel Freemantle about secession.

Overall, for the un-initiated, the speeches are there to explain the 'whys'.
For those of us who have seen the film enough times that we don't care for the speeches anymore (or you just want to bypass them, period) well that's why there's a "Skip" button!

reply

Gods and Generals was really bad for this. Soliloquies every time someone spoke.

reply

I've read enough of Jeff Shaara's books to realize that he'll never fill his father's shoes. He seems to be mechanically filling in the template his father created with neither the passion nor the historical accuracy, no matter what historical period he's trying to convey.

reply

I tried reading Gods and Generals, but he tries too hard to mimic his father's work that I gave up.

--
Once upon a time, we had a love affair with fire.
http://athinkersblog.com/

reply

I enjoyed reading Gods and Generals for the most part. Watching it was another matter entirely though.

reply

I've never read "G&G" but he read his book featuring Bragg, the AoT and the battles around Chattanooga. I don't have much desire to read anymore of his works unless someone gave me the book(s).

reply

Certain monologues are kind of necessary.
Chamberlain's why-we-fight explanation to the mutineers was necessary.


Possibly necessary to tutor the uninformed, but not accurate. In actuality, the transfer of the mutineers to the 20th Maine occurred six weeks earlier in mid-May 1863, and Chamberlain's speech was much less along the lines of "why we fight" to a group of men who had seen more combat than he had, and much more along the lines of, "I know you think you got screwed, and you may be right. I'll do what I can for your case, but in the meantime you're still soldiers and will be treated as such."

Armstead's & Hancock's own soliloquys were too, if only to expound on the depth of their friendship.
And, of course, Longstreet's foreshadowing bit to Harrison after Harrison wishes to join in Pickett's Charge....

Same with Sam Elliot's character's bit about what would happen if their cavalry unit didn't take the high ground.


They were soliloquies because in the book they were the characters' stream-of-consciousness thoughts. Ron Maxwell rarely used voice-overs to reflect such thoughts (Chamberlain's "Hold to the last" thoughts on Little Round Top and Lee's quoting of the Psalms and contemplating withdrawal versus attack are the only instances I can think of) and he chose artistically to use monologue much more than voice-over.

The bit about Tom Chamberlain speaking to the Confederate POWs is borderline. It serves as expository dialogue to those viewers who don't know anything about the Civil War. That written, it could've served to make up for deleting the Confederate officers' talk w/ British Colonel Freemantle about secession.

Overall, for the un-initiated, the speeches are there to explain the 'whys'.


In the book, Tom Chamberlain's conversation with the POWs was presented as a paragraph of his dialogue telling Lawrence about the encounter. It might arguably have been redundant to the scenes with Freemantle, but Ron Maxwell decided, again for artistic purposes, to show the actual conversation with the POWs as a cute recreation of a famous painting, Prisoners From the Front by Winslow Homer.

The Chamberlain & Kilrain bit about "killer angels" etc could've possibly been left out.


That scene was taken straight from the book, except for the actual "he damn well must be a killer angel" line which was from a flashback scene between Chamberlain and his father. It's obvious that Kilrain is something of a father figure to Chamberlain, so that was close enough.

reply

"The Chamberlain & Kilrain bit about "killer angels" etc could've possibly been left out. Same with Sam Elliot's character's bit about what would happen if their cavalry unit didn't take the high ground.
The bit about Tom Chamberlain speaking to the Confederate POWs is borderline. It serves as expository dialogue to those viewers who don't know anything about the Civil War. That written, it could've served to make up for deleting the Confederate officers' talk w/ British Colonel Freemantle about secession."

I LOVED Elliott's speech about "the high ground", and he was correct.

They could have left out Tom talking to the Confederate POWs. I didn't care about that.

The Freemantle character could have been entirely omitted, but he was tolerable.

reply

This movie needed about three powerful speeches. Instead we got about ten.

Classic case of a director in love with everything he shoots.

"I've seen things that would make you want to write a book on how to puke."

reply

No, case of director trying to take a book in which the characters think a lot and translate it to the screen where actors have to think out loud.

reply

I like Tom and the rebel POW's scene for a couple of reasons, both historical.

In Burn's Civil War series, Shelby Foote discusses a photo he's "particularly fond of" showing 3 rebels who were captured near the railroad cut on day 1. These in essence were the 3 prisoners Tom was talking too.

Second, in two different Civil War books I've read, I've come across the story about the ragged poor rebel taken prisoner, who obviously could less about secession and didn't own a slave, when asked why he was fighting said, "we're fightin' for our rats." This was also carried into this scene. (The other popular reply was "we're fightin' cus your down here.")

I only have one person on ignore, but I've had to ignore him 625 different times.

reply

Unlike the rest of you I actually enjoyed every bit of dialogue in this movie.

"Time to die! Like a man!" Venom Spider-Man Web of Shadows

reply

No.

reply

I agree, I found myself fast forwarding a lot through this movie.
Personally, I think about 90 minutes could have been cut out without affecting the overall storyline--once they start getting to preachy and injecting modern political correctness into a historical account, I have to call BS on that one, because not too many federal soldiers were as compassionate as depicted (ergo, Colonel Chamberlain), as I can't imagine a wartime colonel being that softhearted.

On the other hand, visually, this is probably the best Civil War movie ever made. Very believable and captivating--other than the preachy overtones.

------------------------
I really don't like talking about my flair.

reply

I cannot fathom how anybody with an interest for the Civil War could fast forward through this film, speeches or not.
Go read the book.

reply

Talk about "tv to got to sleep by"!

reply

It's all a matter of taste. Some people like all action films, some people like a lot of monologue and dialogue, some people like a mix of some sort. Personally, I like the movie just the way it was released in 1993. The expanded version on the blue ray is okay and adds a bit of background - the few seconds it devotes to explaining what is going on with Garnett and that Longstreet is mourning his children - should have been left in the original. Ditto Lee's discussion with Ewell and the other generals who failed to take "that hill" on day 1.

But Armistead's monologue in the tent with Longstreet the night before Pickett's charge is absolutely essential to the story line, brilliantly done by Richard Jordan (who was THE expert at monologues at the time), and made me FEEL for the first time what brother against brother really was. I'd heard it often enough before that, but never FELT it in my gut until I saw that monologue. May both Armistead and Jordan rest in peace. They did their jobs and delivered more than anyone could have asked for men in their respective positions in life.

reply

When you study the civil war and all of its aspects, research it and the time period involved, speeches in this movie are essential to understanding the soldiers involved and why they fought as they did.
Yes, its a matter of taste, but more importantly its a matter of understanding the film itself and the subject it covers.

reply

I understood the reason for most of the speeches, but it got to the point where I thought I was watching a Lord of the Rings movie, especially towards the end. It looked like Pickett's charge should begin any second now, but there was a half hour of speech upon speech by every single southern general before they finally stepped off.

reply

The speeches weren't as annoying in the book, in the movie it's a bit too over the top at times. Irl men don't talk to each other in politically correct speeches though.

reply