Guest Review: Gettysburg (1993)

By Tennessee Jed

Whatever else I may think of Ted Turner, I owe him a debt of gratitude for spending a fortune producing historical films like Gettysburg. Adapted from Michael Shaaraʼs 1974 Pulitzer Prize winning novel “The Killer Angels,” Gettysburg effectively conveys the horror of combat, while still laying out the strategies, tactics and motivations of the commanders by following several key participants in the battle. While not perfect, this remains the best depiction of civil war era military action to date.

Authenticity - What sets Gettysburg apart from prior Civil War films is the impact of the re-enactors. When casting calls went out for extras, the “hard cores” responded en masse. These guys have a passion for historical accuracy that borders on obsession. The most serious refer to themselves as “super hard core” and even soak the brass buttons on their uniforms in urine to gain an authentic “worn” patina they claim cannot be otherwise achieved. Their leader, the late Brian Pohanka (a nice cameo as General Webb, the Brigadier in command of union troops at the “angle”) was able to convince filmmakers of the wisdom of doing things accurately. Thus, virtually all pan shots down the lines, all marching shots, cannon fire, rifle volleys, and drum and bugle calls are as authentic as possible. When you see the strain of battle showing on the faces of members of the 20th Maine, you feel as if you are majestically transported back in time and plunked down inside the action. The director even does a wonderful job of creating the passage of time as they beat back attack after attack.

Where the film comes up a bit short is its inability to convey the magnificent sweep of the action. Made before CGI, it was just not possible to show a three day action involving over 150,000 combatants and 300 artillery pieces, and which produced over 50,000 casualties. Nevertheless, Director Maxwell did the best he could to frame shots to minimize the problem. Look closely at the forming of the ranks for Pickettʼs charge and you will see the nature of the problem and can judge how well it was handled. At Gettysburg, there were 150 artillery pieces in the “pont au feu” preceding Pickettʼs charge. “Pont au feu” is a term coined by Napoleon for one of his favored tactics. Literally meaning “bridge of fire” it refers to withering artillery bombardment focused on the point of attack to break up the defense preceding an infantry advance. It lasted over an hour and was heard as far away as Lancaster. They only had about 30 guns available for the film, but when you listen on a great surround system you can get at least some idea of what the 150 would have sounded like. Imagine, the terror of 150 pieces firing at you continuously for over an hour and knowing “luck” was the only thing keeping you from literally being blown to pieces.

The Story - The screenplay does a nice job adapting the novel. This was the largest Civil War action in terms of combatants and casualties, and to many, represented the Confederacy's best chance to win their independence. Thanks to Lincoln’s address, no Civil War battle is better known, and most Americans are aware of the names “Gettysburg” and “Pickettʼs Charge.” But surprisingly few beyond historians or “buffs” know many of the battle details. Gettysburg achieves a good balance between filmmaking and providing a historian's level of knowledge. Indeed, rather than trying to capture everything in the battle, the film follows a handful of key participants. There is nice coverage of critical moments, such as the role of Union Cavalry Commander General John Buford in holding back the enemy long enough to save the favored union position on day one, but the storyline primarily pivots around three individuals:

General Robert E. Lee, Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, is one of the best, most beloved military leaders ever produced in America, a true legend. After the war, some southern historians adopted a theory known as the “lost cause,” part of which assigns an unrealistic infallibility to Lee. As such, any failures had to be due to either impossible circumstance or the failure of subordinates. The person most often blamed was Lt. General James Longstreet, Lee’s most valued and senior Corp Commander. He is the second key character. Indeed, Gettysburg fairly accurately depicts the relationship between the two and the tension that created at Gettysburg. It also does a credible job of outlining tactics such as the “left oblique” utilized in Pickettʼs charge (masking the specific target point of the attack.) Longstreet did disagree with much of Lee’s strategy at Gettysburg, and he did fail to execute his orders in a timely and, in some cases, effective manner. Although his “certain knowledge of futility” is perhaps overplayed, the facts and the film tend to support Longstreet rather than his detractors. Certainly, other subordinates also made mistakes and random chance played a huge role as well. Lee, ever the gentleman, appropriately took bottom line responsibility for the failure of the campaign.

The third key character is Lt. Colonel Joshua L. Chamberlain, commander of the Union’s 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment. Just as they reached the field, it was discovered the left side of the union line had mistakenly been moved forward leaving the flank “in the air” with the tactically crucial position known as Little Round Top left unoccupied. The regiment is rushed to the top just in time and becomes the flank of the entire Union Army. They are ordered to “defend against all hazards,” in essence a fight to the death.

Despite continuous assault by elements of Hood’s Division, the line holds. Attackers from Col. William Oates 15th Alabama try to turn his flank. Chamberlain employs the tactic of “refusing the flank” (bending the line back at right angles to itself in order to prevent becoming outflanked.) Overcome by fatigue and running out of ammunition, Chamberlain orders a pinwheel pivot bayonet counter charge since he really has no other option. Flank secured, army and union saved; hurrah! Chamberlain is not a professional soldier, rather a professor of rhetoric at Bowdoin College. Awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his defense of Little Round Top, he would be wounded no less than six times later in the war, including a grievous wound through both hips. Thought dead, he miraculously survives and eventually returns to active duty. Promoted to Major General and a position of honor at Appomattox, after the war he becomes Governor of Rhode Island and president of Bowdoin -- a true American hero.

The Cast - Mixed results. Jeff Daniels is nothing short of superb as Chamberlain in what may be his best role. As evidence, I offer the speech he gives to the “deserters” early in the film. Almost worth the price of admission on its own. Despite being entirely too short for the role (not an insignificant problem) Sheen did a good job conveying Lee’s nobility and grace. When he finds Harry Heth has engaged Buford without knowing the extent of enemy strength, Lee is furious with him. Without raising his voice, Lee literally cuts him to shreds. Masterful! Tom Berenger is nicely cast as Longstreet. Big and raw boned, he accurately conveys the larger than life presence of Lee’s second in command.

Sam Elliot is made for these kinds of films and does a great job as Buford. The late Richard Jordon in his last role before succumbing to a brain tumor seemed a tad over the top as General Lewis Armistead. Brian Mantle, also suffering from a lack of physical stature, was unconvincing as General Winfield Hancock. As evidence, see the dialog when an aide tries to convince him to be less of a target (sounds like a high school play dialog.) Kevin Conway is his usual professional self as the fictional “Buster Kilroy.” Likewise, Cooper Huckabee did an interesting job as Harry Harrison, Longstreet’s Shakespearian actor turned master spy. Former James Bond actor George Lazenby has a great scene where he tries to present his academic treatise on artillery to Longstreet as they go into battle. Longstreet jokes that “he doubts he will have time to read it today.”

Other Factors - At over 4 hours, this is a long film. In its defense, it was originally intended to be presented as a mini-series on TBS, but Turner was pleased enough with the result to put it into limited theater release first.

The storytelling technique sometimes resembles a Shakespearian play. Major characters are permitted to launch into speeches that seem out of synch with modern conversational style. I understand how this can be somewhat off-putting, however, people actually did engage in more flowery rhetoric back then as normal course. The speeches also tend to serve as a device to convey deeper motivations of the combatants.

Finally, as we celebrate the 150th anniversary of arguably the defining period in our nation's history thus far, I urge people to see this film. I guarantee it will increase your appreciation the next time you hear Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address . . . “from these honored dead, we take increased devotion to that cause to which they gave the last full measure of devotion.”

P.S. When I visit Gettysburg, I stay in the “Lee Suite” at the Cashtown Inn featured in the movie and in the painting by Mort Kunstler in this article. In the actual historical battle, it served as General A.P. Hill’s headquarters. During filming of Gettysburg, it served as Sam Elliot’s lodging. The second painting, also by Kunstler, depicts Chamberlain’s counter charge on Little Round Top.