Thanks to Jason Herbert for the invitation to appear on his wonderful podcast Historians at the Movies. Many of you are familiar with Jason’s work in which he brings historians together to provide commentary and historical context for some of our favorite Hollywood movies. It’s both entertaining and informative.
Thanks for posting this and you excellent analysis. I was sorry to miss the original discussion.
I enjoyed the movie mightily when it came out, and it has a bunch of actors whom I really admire. But I agree it has aged badly. Even 30 years ago, I wondered, where are the African Americans? While there is a good reason for the absence of USCTs, there isn't for the absence of camp "servants" or any mention of the Pennsylvanians kidnapped by Lee's army.
As to performances, Lee is a bad fit for Sheen's gifts as an actor. I heard that their first choice had been Robert Duvall, who has for Lee but couldn't get him. Most of the other leads do a good job, although the man playing Hood seems rather elderly for the role. I still have some favorite moments - Chamberlain's speech to the 2nd Maine, all the scenes with Kilrain, and the defense of Little Round Top ("You mean, chahge?"). And while I had read about Hancock riding back and forth on the ridge during the bombardment, actually seeing how brave a thing he (and his flag-bearer) was doing remains a shock.
As you know, Duvall went on to play Lee in Gods and Generals. I thought he did an OK job, but that seems to me to be an impossible role, almost as challenging as playing Lincoln. That said, I thought Lewis did a fine job in the movie Lincoln.
I did not attend the original discussion because I did not complete the assignment of watching the movie. I’d never watched it before, and tho I love Martin Sheen, his Lee got on my last nerve very quickly. Thank you, THANK you for this iteration of your thoughts, I feel much better about not liking what I saw of the movie. Maybe if I could just watch the parts with Longstreet and Chamberlain…
I watched the movie this year, as I always do, trying to watch bits on the appropriate days. So I watched the early part on June 30, the July 1st part on July 1st, etc. There is a ton of things to criticize on historical grounds, but the movie is faithful to the original text (the novel, "Killer Angels") and that is a big factor to me in evaluating a film. (Although, occasionally, a film can massively improve on a poor book; but that is not on topic here.) As much as there is to criticize---the beards, the Lost Cause tones, the absence of important issues---much of that (not the beards) is in the novel. I am always drawn to Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee. Many have criticized it, but I think he did an outstanding job of portraying Lee *as written in the novel*. As a resident of Michigan, I of course love how Chelsea's Jeff Daniels does Chamberlain.
Thanks for posting this and you excellent analysis. I was sorry to miss the original discussion.
I enjoyed the movie mightily when it came out, and it has a bunch of actors whom I really admire. But I agree it has aged badly. Even 30 years ago, I wondered, where are the African Americans? While there is a good reason for the absence of USCTs, there isn't for the absence of camp "servants" or any mention of the Pennsylvanians kidnapped by Lee's army.
As to performances, Lee is a bad fit for Sheen's gifts as an actor. I heard that their first choice had been Robert Duvall, who has for Lee but couldn't get him. Most of the other leads do a good job, although the man playing Hood seems rather elderly for the role. I still have some favorite moments - Chamberlain's speech to the 2nd Maine, all the scenes with Kilrain, and the defense of Little Round Top ("You mean, chahge?"). And while I had read about Hancock riding back and forth on the ridge during the bombardment, actually seeing how brave a thing he (and his flag-bearer) was doing remains a shock.
As you know, Duvall went on to play Lee in Gods and Generals. I thought he did an OK job, but that seems to me to be an impossible role, almost as challenging as playing Lincoln. That said, I thought Lewis did a fine job in the movie Lincoln.
I did not attend the original discussion because I did not complete the assignment of watching the movie. I’d never watched it before, and tho I love Martin Sheen, his Lee got on my last nerve very quickly. Thank you, THANK you for this iteration of your thoughts, I feel much better about not liking what I saw of the movie. Maybe if I could just watch the parts with Longstreet and Chamberlain…
Sheen's performance is definitely difficult to watch.
I watched the movie this year, as I always do, trying to watch bits on the appropriate days. So I watched the early part on June 30, the July 1st part on July 1st, etc. There is a ton of things to criticize on historical grounds, but the movie is faithful to the original text (the novel, "Killer Angels") and that is a big factor to me in evaluating a film. (Although, occasionally, a film can massively improve on a poor book; but that is not on topic here.) As much as there is to criticize---the beards, the Lost Cause tones, the absence of important issues---much of that (not the beards) is in the novel. I am always drawn to Martin Sheen's portrayal of Lee. Many have criticized it, but I think he did an outstanding job of portraying Lee *as written in the novel*. As a resident of Michigan, I of course love how Chelsea's Jeff Daniels does Chamberlain.
Perhaps I need to reread the novel in its entirety, but I remember enjoying it much more than the movie. Thanks for the comment, Jim.