MovieChat Forums > Gettysburg (1993) Discussion > Now I can say I saw it

Now I can say I saw it


Made as a wet dream for Civil War buffs, the over 4 hour “Gettysburg” is still the longest American film ever made and in that it is expansive, muddled, epic, frustrating, reverential, and underdeveloped all in the same breath.


Based on the book “The Killer Angels”, it feels like much of this Ted Turner produced miniseries (which had a short theatrical run) about 1863’s Battle of Gettysburg is based around tactical strategy and the other 25 percent of the film is devoted to the battles themselves, of which one is absolutely mesmerizing in its heroic beauty. The Battle of Little Round Top, where outnumbered Union soldiers fight to protect the wooded hill from charging Confederate soldiers is one of the best battle sequences i’ve ever seen; a bloody and desperate conflict that plays out in agonizing detail, accompanied by Randy Edelman’s soaring score. Much of it looks very authentic, from the guns all the way down to the tobacco pouches. However, i’m not sure if this had to do with the copy I saw or the fact this was originally intended for television, but other battles seem somewhat indistinct, blurry, and uncinematic.


That the film seems wholly devoted to the ins and outs of the Gettysburg conflict doesn’t leave a lot of time to get to know the characters but a few performances do shine through, especially Jeff Daniels as Union Colonel Joshua Chamberlain. We see his conviction, passion, and resolve, a humble, proud man willing to fight for something more than just himself. The speechifying in the film can get daunting at times but never from Daniels, who we first see not only address 120 mutineers, but sway them to the cause, and we believe in and want to follow him, too. Another dignified performance comes from Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee, who shows unshakeable commitment to the cause at hand. Richard Jordan also does affecting work as Confederate Brig. Gen. Lewis Armistead, who laments the fact that he may never see a friend on the other side of this conflict again. Sam Elliot also plays Brig. Gen. Buford, a big, early reason for why the Union was able to take the hill in the first place, while Tom Berenger plays Lee’s aide Longstreet, who gives wise counsel that Lee will ignore.


These ruminations and second guessing on strategy can lead to thought provoking what ifs and certainly I liked the more sobering moments where soldiers are asked why they fight. The reasons are eclectic yet there doesn’t seem to be an overarching point of view. Both North and South are treated as heroes of their own stories, and in that, we can see that there were brave men on both sides, but things such as slavery and regionalism hang over the battles and seem to call out for more context than the film is willing to give. In the end, “Glory” was a great film because we understood exactly what was being fought for. Here, all that really matters is the next battle plan.

reply

I don't agree that there isn't enough character development. I have watched this since I was a young teenager and I think most of the characters have enough screentime. I also don't agree that the battles were blurry but I have the extended cut on bluray. Maybe you watched a bad version of it on a streaming service.

reply