Here is NYT Film Review
Read "The True Story Behind the Movie Glory"
Read "Civil War Historian and Consultant Reflects on His Experience.
All students from Period 6 must post a few thoughtful sentences about Glory. What was the most powerful scene in the film? Who was your favorite character? Do you think most Americans know about the enormous contribution of African-American soldiers during the Civil War? In class, we watched scenes from the Civil War epic, Gone With The Wind (1939). Try to find some more scenes from this famous blockbuster on YouTube, and then contrast it with Glory (1989). How do these two films' contrasting images of African-Americans, the South, and slavery reflect the changing historiography of the Civil War from 1915 to 1990? Are you surprised that it took until the Korean War in the 1950's for African-Americans to fight alongside white soldiers in the U.S. military? You may also want to respond to the historians' points from the articles.
The famous film critic Roger Ebert wrote, "While watching 'Glory,' I had one recurring problem. I didn't understand why it had to be told so often from the point of view of the 54th's white commanding officer. Why did we see the black troops through his eyes - instead of seeing him through theirs? To put it another way, why does the top billing in this movie go to a white actor? I ask, not to be perverse, but because I consider this primarily a story about a black experience and do not know why it has to be seen largely through white eyes." Where do you stand on Ebert's argument?
Judah - I really enjoyed the film. It was very real and full of emotion. The rather depressing ending and blurb about the 54th's influence on the war showed the black soldiers as they were, not through the typical rose-colored glasses of Hollywood, where everything is embellished and has a happy ending. I was particularly moved by the scene where everybody ripped up their paychecks. For me, that was the apex of affect, one of the most meaningful and emotional scenes in the movie. I particularly enjoyed Morgan Freeman in the role of Sergeant Major Rawlins. He embodied the stalwart, valiant leader and the father figure for the other troops and I think he played the character very well. I think the movie shed some light on the contributions of black soldiers during the Civil War, a piece of history that has been more or less overlooked. While I enjoyed Matthew Broderick in the role of Shaw, I do agree with Ebert's review somewhat. I was a bit surprised that, in a movie about the black experience, it was seen through the eyes of their white supervisor. If it were told from the point of view from Trip or Rawlins, the story might have felt a bit more authentic and genuine.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the movie a lot. The battle scene was most memorable to me. I cannot imagine being a soldier during the civil war. The tactics were unfit for the weaponry of that time. Any knowledgeable person knows a full frontal attack against a fort would be ineffective. In addition, I felt there was not enough violence and gore. The film could have did a better job of showing the true casualties of war. An artillery blast will blow off a soldier's limb. These graphic images would enhance the civil war battle experience for the audience. An example of a graphic battle scene would be the beach invasion in the movie " Saving Private Ryan".
ReplyDeleteKatherine Wei (Period 3)- I agree- I usually would like the movie to be more realistic and have more action, and this movie seems more eventful than Lincoln. But how was violence and gore portrayed in the movie?
DeleteAngela - I loved the movie a lot, and found the claim that "females would not connect" an absurd one. Surely, it's a war movie so blood and violence is to be expected. However, because we understand the background of the movie and were knowledgeable about the regiment before even watching the movie, blood and gore didn't matter as much, for there is the more important theme about the 54th Massachusetts Regiment and the bravery of the African American men who joined. Two parts honestly stuck with me from watching this movie: First, I can never forget the bravery and the determination of the men (and Shaw). No matter what kind of challenges are thrown at them, they eagerly approach them--they are, although nervous, always excited to be fighting and being productive. Thomas, who I felt was a somewhat weak character in the beginning of the movie, also never gives up, even though he shakes and cries. The other scene/aspect that stuck with me, however strange, is Shaw's death. I did not really expect him to die (I'm not sure why, I guess I was just hoping for a happy-ever-after...) but when he does die, I immediately thought, "His death was a necessary, sacrificial one." Even though Shaw gets shot by simply getting up, it moves the other men into action. And really, that motivation allowed them to stop waiting and taking the offense. (Since this movie is historically accurate though, perhaps they were really just presenting what happened in the actual battle?) I do wish we get to see what happens after the battle to the surviving men, so I'm a tad bit disappointed about that, and about the focus on the white leaders. I completely agree with Ebert: Why do we see the film in Shaw's point of view? Why does it focus so much on how Shaw feels for his men, when it should be more so about how the men feel? Even with these critiques, however, I still found Glory to be a great movie that I would love to watch again. (:
ReplyDeleteJessica - Glory was definitely a spectacular watch. Compared to many other Civil War movies, it presented a relatively factual account of the war situation. Laced with emotion, Glory not only depicted the harsh lifestyles that soldiers led, but also the blatant racism and struggles that the 54th Regiment, in particular, faced. Scenes such as the one showing the soldiers' plague-ridden feet tugged at my emotions. It was simply unfair to withhold supplies from a single group of soldiers! After all, no matter what color their skin is, they're still men ready to die fighting for our country. Perhaps one of the most memorable scenes in the movie was the Battle at Fort Wagner. From a textbook's standpoint, we only get a vague idea of what war is like. Viewing the reenacted battle, however, brings a completely different experience to our eyes. I cringed when I saw the men marching straight-on, despite the onslaught of gunshots. Though I find this military tactic to be ineffective and ridiculous, I could really see the soldiers' heroism and determination when they risked exposure to firing. One of the defining moments later in the battle was Shaw's death, which sparked an eruption of spirit from the regiment. Along with the music, the very sight of the men racing forward with no hesitation, stabbing Confederate soldiers, and supporting one another, brought tears of joy to my eyes. They were finally able to prove themselves and receive the recognition they deserved to receive! As for my favorite character, I'd say that it'd probably be Shaw. In the beginning, Shaw's position as colonel alienated him from truly embracing his abolitionist ideals. However, later on, he supported the troops' refusal for pay and also stormed into the supply room for shoes, two actions that display his utter devotion to the men. Although the movie is seen entirely through his perspective, I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing. I think the producers and directors of the film could have at least included some scenes from the perspective of an African soldier. It would lend authenticity to the film's portrayal of them. In addition, it seems hypocritical to view the situation through the eyes of a white man when this film is centered mainly around black soldiers. Overall though, I really enjoyed watching Glory xD
ReplyDeleteJiyoon - I really liked this film because it gave an accurate depiction of the lives of black soldiers during the Civil War, something that is overlooked in history. This film paid very close attention to details. Black soldiers were still discriminated against by white soldiers, given less pay, and didn’t receive their uniform and shoes until much later on. For me, the most memorable moment in this movie was when Shaw volunteered his regiment to lead the attack against Fort Wagner. He knew that this was a suicidal mission and that there would be enormous casualties. But what he wanted was a chance to prove that his regiment was as good as any other. Throughout the movie, I could see Shaw’s change from a man who was hesitant about leading a regiment to a soldier who died trying to inspire morale in his men. Similarly, at first, the men were not really sure what to make of Shaw. But by the end, they come to respect him and value his leadership. I partly agree with Ebert’s argument; the movie was in the point of view of Shaw, the white leader, even though the story was about an all-black regiment. But at the same time, there were many scenes focusing on black soldiers such as Rawlins and Trip. The scene with all the soldiers praying and singing on the night before the battle was particularly moving, showing how they all saw each other as family. Overall, this movie was very intense and inspiring to watch.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed Glory more than I have maybe any other I've seen in the last year; it was very affecting. I recognize the validity of Ebert's criticism, and the resounding approval of the movie with which it was coupled, but I disagree. Firstly, I disagree that the movie focuses entirely on seeing the 54th through Shaw's eyes: there are more than a few scenes in which neither Shaw nor any of the commanding officers are present, and the soldiers both discuss Shaw and react to their own respective situations individually. Furthermore, as Shaw grows colder to both his men and Forbes during training, we grow distanced from him as viewers, and form our own opinions about Shaw through the snippets of his letters and the way he treats his men. Secondly, it was most likely in the interest of historical accuracy that the story was told to some degree from Shaw's perspective (via his letters) because his letters were prolific, and because it was unlikely that his soldiers had written as much as he had. This is because (as was shown in the movie), very few of the amenities the soldiers needed were provided (which most likely included pen & paper), many had noone to write to (several were runaway slaves), and many who had been keeping journals would likely have died during the assault on Fort Wagner, whereas all of Shaw's letters had been sent out beforehand. Thirdly, because exploring the war through (primarily) Shaw's perspective allowed insight into how the army operated, and how the other commanding officers (like Harker and Montgomery) regarded the men. Finally, I think that the story was told largely from Shaw's perspective because it allowed for the exploration of the men in much the same way as they were viewed at the time. Through his perspective, the viewer observes the men perhaps even more closely for having been exposed to nuanced and varied white opinions and expectations of them, which are consistently and entirely swept away by the valor and depth of their character. In what of the men we do see, it does often become infuriating that eventually we must return to Shaw, but I believe that this is the point: by making us crave deeper exploration of the soldiers of the 54th, the film confronts us with the fact that their humanity is something that was so often entirely disregarded, and makes their final sacrifice all the more meaningful.
ReplyDeleteTiffani Ren-
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved the film!! The moment that touched me was the one where Trip was whipped. I would have laughed when Trip flicked his clothes off for the man to whip if I weren't so frightened. It felt like what Trip would do--laugh in the enemy's face--except he was being completely stoic (interesting, same effect?). And suddenly seeing the lashes on his back had such a profound effect on me. It communicated to all of us, without words, that he was so used to this, being whipped and had developed such a hardness against it (having preserved so many times). Except it was still so painful, even after he'd gone through it a bajillion times before. And the most heartbreaking part of this scene was how hard he tried to hold it all in, keeping his face steady as he looked with utter hate at Shaw, as he was hit. He never cried out or begged for mercy or explained that he was only looking for shoes (!! AGH.) and he blinked all his tears back, only one tear escaped, and I felt like crying for him, because he wouldn't. My favorite character is probably Trip :) and Thomas!! I really liked how Thomas was developed (his enthusiasm was a constant), but it... was almost crushing to see how much Trip teased him about being an intellecutal, and how badly he wanted to serve, even after he was wounded! I really loved how, after Shaw hardened a little against the men and pushed them really really hard and so coldly snubbed Thomas, how Thomas still wished Shaw a merry christmas. It not only showed how amazing and forgiving Thomas was (! love Thomas) but it also snapped Shaw out of his cold attitude and I think it reminded him that his men were not just soldiers, they were people too!!
I disagree partially with Henry's comment about the violence; there were bodies flying through the air when the bombs fell and perhaps there could have been close-ups of guys with their liagments blown off or their blood splattered all over, but I felt that there was enough. I was actually cringing and wishing it would all stop, and someone would be declared the winner (though.... It doesn't feel like anyone won with all the losses of lives). It can be argued it's because "I'm a girl"(Angela and I were talking together and we were really offended by that :( ), but I feel like the males couldn't be so gung-ho about people shooting at the 54th (and the beloved characters we've grown so attached to!) while they crossed the river!! (It's not a matter of girls are too sensitive to violence and boys are tougher and can handle it; I believe the truth is less generalized and more universal to all PEOPLE) ... I wondered where the glory was, while watching the violence ensue. I didn't see any in the actual war; I saw ruin and destuction and, admist it all, heartaching camaraderie. (I'm interested in hearing where other people think the glory of it all is! :D ) ... But I recall something Shaw said earlier, when the men did not yet experience war or murder, when he read the letter from General Lee, threatening to enslave all black soldiers captured, and then the morning after, not a man deserted. Not a soldier would forfeit their position in fear of being a slave to the South again. Shaw said "Glory Hallelujah" (with beautttiful, poignant music playing in the background).
And maybe that was what was glorious. These black men, who wanted the glory of being a Union soldier, or wanted to fight back the South and get retribution... or perhaps they were doing it to serve their Union, and was willing to give their life for it. In this way, they were fighting back figuratively, against degrading minstral shows, and films like Gone With the Wind (Trip was defintely NOT like the "happy slaves" in the South, content with serving their mistresses and masters). It was these men whom were glorious, not the war they were serving in. :)
Glory be.
Brian Heo
ReplyDeleteThis was actually the 2nd time I saw this movie and I still get the goosebumps with the final battle scene at Fort Wagner. The bravery of the men of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment are still moving and filled with so much emotion. Despite the very patriotic battle scene in the end, this moving was much more than just a military film or documentary, but with the perfect cast of Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Matthew Broderick, the depiction of all the hardships, successes, as well has defeats were successfully portrayed by the actors. And I liked how the movie (well in my opinion as well as Kyle's) was in the perspective of Colonel Shaw and specifically the mothers written to his mother. What i pictured was a flashback and someone reading the letters (probably Shaw's mother) and the descriptions being very realistic helped depict the scene in the battle front. From the beginning, when all that they were was just fellow soldiers, the film progresses on up until the end where Trip depicts the Regiment best as a family. And if I had to pick one scene, a short section that I would say to best represent the film or a clip that was most significant from the film would be the scene where Colonel Shaw goes to the Quartermaster to fight for shoes and socks for his regiment. The scene progresses onward to show how Shaw uses his authority to help his regiment out. It was more than shoes and socks to the regiment. As almost all of them suffered from serious foot fungus and other diseases, the shoes and socks provided them with a sense of victory over racism. I would definitely recommend this movie to anyone. Regardless of their historical background because this film not only gives you entertainment, but also a lesson on many aspects.
Initially thought to be a cliche war film, Glory turned out to be a pleasant surprise. Its focus on the 54th regiment portrayed an unusual side of the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteMy most memorable scene was the very last scene in the movie where the bodies of Captain Shaw and African American soldiers were buried together. The fact that an honorable white captain was buried with ex-slaves is a symbol of equality. I think the film is suggesting that at the end of the day, everyone is the same, regardless of race. Captain Shaw and his men are the same in many ways. They all believed in, fought for, and died for the same cause.
In response to film critic Roger Ebert's comment, I was also bothered by the fact that the film focuses so much on the white captain's perspective. However, it is understandable from a marketing point of view. The American audience, at the time of the film's release, was more comfortable with having a white protagonist, since a majority of moviegoers can identify more with a white man. I think the film would better suit its purpose if it were told from a black soldier's view.
-Ting Li
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGrace Lu - Glory was a powerful film. It took me on an emotional journey, and the struggles and bravery of the 54th regiment really came alive before me. I appreciated its historically accurate focus on blacks in the Civil War. It did not have a sappy Hollywood ending, nor did it include a typical Hollywood love story to garner a wider audience. I especially remember the tearing of the paychecks, Shaw's quest to supply his men with shoes, the regiment's gathering the night before their suicidal attack, and of course, the patriotic battle scene at the end. The best part of this film, however, is not one specific scene, but the characters' progression throughout the film. In this aspect, Denzel Washington's character Trip was my favorite. In the beginning, he is the runaway slave and the defiant and audacious soldier who doubts his colonel and bullies fellow soldiers. He realizes that life will be difficult however the war turns out, but by the end, he recognizes that the 54th is his only family and he comes to respect Shaw, whose death inspires strength in him to pick up the flag and die for the Union. Denzel's two best scenes demonstrate this progression beautifully: from his unwavering glare at Shaw while being unjustly flogged, to his emotional speech during the regiment's prayer song before their final assault. Shaw's progression was also significant: he starts off doubting and not understanding the blacks' behavior, but increasingly respects his men and becomes part of their family. My only issue with the film is the casting of the completely ungeneral-like Matthew Broderick, whose boyishness made him an unbelievable depiction of the esteemed Shaw. I agree with Ebert in that the movie should not be told in a white man's point of view, but the powerful performance of the supporting actors coupled with the phenomenal music still made the movie a worthy tribute to black Civil War soldiers.
ReplyDeleteChristina Lai
ReplyDeleteI loved the film. It was intense throughout the whole movie and it kept me on the edge of my seat. It was definitely not a movie one could just sleep through.
My favorite moment was when Robert Shaw asks "If this man should fall who shall bear the standard?" (or something along those lines) and Thomas Searles steps up and says "I will." This moment sums up the bravery and spirit of the men; they will carry on even in the face of death. Thomas was known as the coward throughout the whole film and I felt as though he had finally grown up when he stepped up and said that. During this moment, I wondered how scared the soldiers were and what they believed they were personally fighting for. What I didn't have doubts about was that they were all fighting for freedom and recognition.
I would disagree with Roger Ebert. If this film was meant to change the opinion of the public and inform them about black soldiers in the Civil War, the POV of the white captain would be most efficient. The soldiers' POV would not be able to show how much they impressed the people around them and how the general opinion of them was elevated a much higher level. Although using the black soldiers' POV might show the experience of the soldier more completely (for example the frustration of not fighting and foot fungus), it would also mean that the difficulty behind getting the regiment the ability to fight (the maneuvering done by the officials) would be shown to a lesser degree. It would have been nice to have more scenes from the soldiers POV since the feelings of the soldiers were not shown in their entirety.
It's really hard to pick a favorite character since they are all strong characters but I sympathized with James because of the way he was torn apart by his beliefs and loyalties. He was an officer that had to listen to Shaw, Thomas' friend and also a kind person who didn't want to whip former slaves. When is loyalties and beliefs conflicted, he always got in trouble. He was also a bit of a tragic character since he seemed like he wanted to play but as a soldier he was in constant danger of dying.
Sunny Zhang- I absolutely loved this. The battle scenes were realistic, the emotions of the soldiers were powerful, and the obstacles the regiment had to face were made clear. One memorable scene was the one where Trip is whipped in front of the whole regiment. The scars already on his back indicate that he was a former slave, and the way he refused to cry out from pain made a deep impression on me. He stared straight at Colonel Shaw, but not out of hatred (as Tiffani mentions). Rather, it is a display of strength and dignity. He is showing that he will fight for his freedom no matter the cost.
ReplyDeleteI looked up the trailer of the film Gone With The Wind. The story is obviously told from the rich white southerner’s point of view. With many scenes of parties with neatly dressed gentlemen and ladies, the film portrays the ideal Southern lifestyle. In fact, the only African American that makes an appearance is Scarlett’s servant, and she is shown to be happy that the war is over (it isn’t mentioned that the South had lost). In the trailer of Glory, the black soldiers take center stage, although it is true that the movie itself is told more from the point of view of the white Colonel Shaw. Unlike Ebert, I don’t see a problem with this. Shaw makes a great effort to understand his soldiers. In this way, not only do we see the obstacles faced by the soldiers and the racism of the other whites, we witness the plight of the abolitionist whites who are sympathetic to the blacks’ cause but still find it difficult to truly understand them.
Brian Lui- I enjoyed watching the film Glory. I thought the acting was stellar, especially by the men in the 54th Massachusetts regiment, and I loved the way the music complemented the movie. One scene that I found very memorable was the one in which Colonel Montgomery instructed the 54th regiment to burn down the Southern town. It reminded me of when Mr. Sandler told us about Southerners to this day still disliking Sherman because of his use of total war. After seeing this scene, it showed me the destructive side of the war; although total war may have felt necessary for the North to win the war, such methods destroyed a lifetime of labors for the Southerners, many of which probably did not even want to fight in the war. Because of this, I would have loved it if Robert Shaw decided to disobey Montgomery and the 54th regiment followed suit, but that would probably be too far from the truth.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with Roger Ebert’s view. Although I think the film would have been stronger if it was told in the view of the black soldiers, the director also had to take into account potential profit on the film. When the movie was released in 1989, although there is less racism toward blacks after the Civil Rights movement in the mid 20th century, I think it was still too avant-garde to have a black lead. Because having a black lead would have caused less people to watch the movie, and thus less profit, the director made the easier choice to insert a white lead. This is compared to the choice George Lucas made in his movie Red Tails, in which he personally finance the film because studios decided it was too risky to back a film with an all black cast.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlicia Chen:
ReplyDeleteI thought Glory was a really powerful and moving film. It really gave a picture of the role African soldiers played in our Civil War. For one, I didn’t realize the magnitude of the effect that discrimination had on the African soldiers until I watch this movie. The lack of supplies for the 54th regiment and the lack of attention and care to address this really made me feel sympathetic toward the soldiers and enraged at the officials with higher authority. Also, the fact that it was assumed by the war officials that the African soldiers were not going to actually ever go into combat made me extremely resentful of the men who clearly displayed this sort of racism. (I find it outrageous that this issue of segregated forces was only resolved in the 1950s!) During the raid in a small town in South Carolina, when the superior officer commanded his men to kill everyone and burn down the establishments, I was infuriated by his insults targeting the soldiers. He called them a good handful of derogatory names and just seeing this kind of expectation that the Africans would never have the capabilities to fight really bothered me a lot. Disproving this belief, the 54th regiment at the Battle of Fort Wagner proved themselves worthy of battle as they valiantly and courageously fought in a suicidal mission. I think the most powerful scenes in this film were during the night before the attack on Fort Wagner and the morning of it. When the men were singing the spiritual and giving their own last words for their fellow soldiers, I was really touched by the passion, dignity and fearlessness that they all displayed. Knowing they were all going to die the next day, none of them were backing out. There were no feelings of sorrow and, all of the men would much rather die as a soldier than live as a slave. The spirit of all the soldiers during the singing and during their march toward the fort was undeniably full of passion despite what they knew the future had in store for them. It was inspiring to see the unity of all the heroes when the white soldiers made way for the black soldiers on during their travel to the fort. Lastly, I disagree with Egbert because I believe that it was necessary to see some scenes through Shaw’s POV. We were able to see more examples of racism that the officers showed privately, especially how they only expected Africans to labor and never fight in actual battles.
Joohyun Ha-
ReplyDeleteI also enjoyed this film a lot, as a lot of other people did. Even though I knew from OOM that 54th Massachusetts Regiment gets defeated severely at Fort Wagner, as the movie built towards the battle scene, I completely forgot about the loss and slaughter that were about to come, because the regiment was so glorious going into the battle. The soldiers knew that their mission was suicidal, but their sheer bravery and determination showed the heroes in them.
Although more than half of the regiment dies in the end, the film itself was so moving to me in its developing of relationships of characters. In the beginning of the movie, neither the soldiers nor the officers were as invested to the regiment; however, they all grow to love each other as family. I personally liked how Colonel Shaw changed throughout the movie. At first, he almost looked traumatized by the war, detached from the world. As the movie progressed, he became the hero of the regiment and the movie, showing his love for his regiment by refusing to accept his paycheck for discrimination of black soldiers in their pay, by demanding the quartermaster for equal supply for his troops, and by sacrificing himself at Fort Wagner to urge his troop on. I would say he was the true father figure of the movie, and he earned the true respect and dignity from the soldiers.
I agree with Kyle's comment that the movie is not entirely from Shaw's perspective. Many scenes were purely of black soldiers, and those scenes really told stories about African soldiers and their culture, that they were willing to sacrifice their lives for freedom. And when Shaw does come out, I feel like his perspective of the story gives us an accurate overview of the regiment, its atmosphere, and soldiers' morale.
Aaron L. - A war movie done right. That is what Glory is. The film utilizes every tool it has to evoke pure emotion from the audience, ranging from the music score to the scenes of battle to show the bravery of the men as they charged into their deaths, to the spiritual-singing soldiers as they gave their last words before battle came. Apart from being an excellent emotional experience, it shed a lot of light on the boundaries broken by the 54th Regiment, and how far the Union was from being the ideal abolitionist state that many American still believe it to have been. Examples include the inherent racism of the officers with regards to shoe distribution and their only expectation for them to perform labor, and the altercation between the black and white soldiers.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the most powerful scene of the film was the scene directly before the Battle for Fort Wagner. In the scene, we see the culmination of the emotional maturity every single person acquired from their time serving in the regiment put to the test. Colonel Shaw, initially a young, scared veteran of Antietam who was suddenly placed in command of a colored regiment, was able to proudly lead his unit into battle after the tremendous soul-searching he does during the film. Thomas, too, displays his transformation from craven intellectual with dormant fighting spirit, to an unwavering pillar of bravery before the disastrous battle. Through his experiences with the regiment, he is able to channel his initial excitement into true commitment to the war, and the ability persevere through the hardships of training and fighting.
When compared to a film like Gone With the Wind, Glory clearly displays how far society progressed in 75 years from the attitude that portrayed the south as an innocent nationalist that simply wanted to preserve their way of life - the change is immediately evident when juxtaposing the romanticization of the Confederate flag in the aftermath of Sherman's assault on Atlanta, with the bravery of an all-colored regiment as they proudly marched into battle.
Although Ebert has valid grievances with regards to the film's POV, I find it to be a unique and well-executed choice to write the film from Shaw's POV. For one, it lets us explore more closely the Union attitude towards blacks and lets us see how Shaw was able to rise to the challenge of leading this colored regiment. Despite the fact that I agree with Ebert that this is a black man's tale that deserves to be told from the black man's perspective, it's also true that there is much to be known from the white man's perspective. I also to an extent agree with Brian's assertion that it was a choice made in interest of profits - the 1980s and 1990s were a progressive time, but even today racial prejudice still exists to a point where people may still be uncomfortable with a plot that focuses so greatly on non-whites.
Ryan Tu - This movie was overall an enjoyable one to watch. The scenes in the film helped expand on the lessons in class about the discrimination that the blacks in the army faced such as when they had difficulty getting their supplies, receiving an unfair pay, being seen by freed slaves or "contraband" as imitators of whites who would never be their equal, and being seen by white soldiers as being under them while they were in a non-combat position. However, with the final scenes at the end with the 54th Regiment attacking Fort Wagner, the true characteristics of these black soldiers emerge: they are brave, courageous soldiers who are able to face death and discrimination to serve their country.
ReplyDeleteThe most powerful scene in this film was the scene where the soldier gets flogged for trying to steal supplies. While the flogging itself was a very tough experience to watch, the meaning behind it was also important. The reason that the soldier had to be flogged was to demonstrate a lesson to other soldiers that the army had some morals to stand by but also showed an example of how blacks were discriminated against in their army. To have gone through so much time in the same clothes they were recruited in, these soldiers were longing for their soldier uniform. To not get one after the work they put into being a soldier shows how the higher ups in the war departments did not respect these black soldiers and how the blacks had to fight for what came standard to the white soldier.
I have to agree with Christina in saying that I disagree with Ebert's argument because of how the POV of the black soldier might not have always been the best in displaying their courage and bravery. Coming from the POV of Shaw, we get to see these soldiers change from energetic young men to brave men who are willing to sacrifice their life for their country. While it is sometimes disturbing to always be seeing things from Shaw's perspective, such as with the soldier's flogging, where it may have been more effective to see how one of the black soldiers felt about seeing one of their fellow soldiers be treated unfairly, Shaw's perspective best shows the fight that the 54th was up against. In getting their supplies, the black soldier would not have been able to knock down objects in the supply house as Shaw did and get the same result. If burning down the town had not been made as wrong as Shaw made it with his view, getting it from one of the soldiers of the 54th would have been seen as incapable of following their orders and incompetent rather than morally correct at that moment. Shaw's POV is crucial in this movie, along with the snippets of where the black soldiers get a say, as it is able to show the discrimination that these black soldiers are up against and how they rise up to face this challenge.
By far, Glory is on of the best historical films I've seen. Many times, including the time I watched Lincoln, I felt as if I was dozing off, however, while watching Glory, I was drawn in. Every second of the movie was worthwhile. I loved the scene where the Shaw joined in with the black soldiers to boycott the 'inferior' black soldier pay, although I am skeptical of whether or not this is entirely true. I especially enjoyed the insertion of the Out of Many type of socialist historiography including the scene where Shaw orders Trip to be whipped when he was only out looking for schools.
ReplyDeleteThe movie doesn't just glorify the 54th Regiment, but it also notes that white authority did not always take justified action showing the flaws in the white leaders. Although I liked the change in Shaw as a leader throughout the movie, I disagree with Ryan, Alicia, (and everyone else) who believed that it was necessary for Shaw's POV to be in the movie. The scene where the white regiment passes the 54th while they are working with the contraband group still shows the amount of racism, and having a scene in which the 54th regiment was compared to the other white regiments in terms of supplies like shoes would also show the same racism the military had on black soldiers. The same idea of the racism during the war could still be demonstrated equally as strong. I think the only reason why we tend to assert that a white perspective is better and possible necessary, is because a white perspective is more commonly used for the protagonist in much of today's media. Thus, it is easily to draw out the theme of heroism when Colonel Shaw dies charging into Fort Wagner. However, I think I would have liked a more critical view on the white authority and a focus on the black soldiers' POV because the 54th Regiment was known for the bravery of the black soldiers, not the death of a white colonel that inspired the blacks to fight harder. The movie to a sense still makes the white colonel too much like a hero in my opinion.
Stephanie Lin (pd 3) - You make it seem like the movie was very entertaining, I would love to watch it soon! However, through the preview all I can see are the white commanding officers dictating to the African American soldiers. Isn't this supposed to be about the 54th regiment? I would have liked to see it from an African American soldier's point of view. Similar to Lincoln, did the director sacrifice historical accuracy for the sake of an entertaining movie for Hollywood? The trailer makes the movie seem very dramatic, with fight scenes and everything, but was it historically appealing?
DeleteThis movie was probably the greatest movie I have ever seen in my life. The relationship between the black soldiers in the 54th regiment was very powerful. It is unique from the other war movies in that the main characters of the movie are not white, powerful, influential, and part of the elite. They are the "underdogs."Throughout the movie, one can see the changes Shaw goes through. Although rough and tough in the beginning, he begins to develop a soft side for his comrades. They eventually become to act like brothers while maintaining the divide between Colonel and soldier. The invasion of Fort Wagner provoked very powerful emotions in the audience. Although they did not take over the fort, the act showed that the black men had courage. The Southerners buried Shaw's dead body with the blacks as an insult, but Shaw's father saw that as an honor, and a symbol to the emancipation. I think the one thing the movie should have added was to show the legacy of the 54th regiment in future years.
ReplyDeleteI can say without a doubt that Glory is one of the best movies I have seen. The progression of the story line of the of the volunteer African Americans, some fugitive slaves, from disorganized to the 54th regiment that heroically attempted to assault Ft. Wagner is amazing. This movie is unique because unlike other Civil War Era movies- one in particular being Lincoln- the main characters here were black. They were portrayed by some of the most iconic black actors, with the like of Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher. I also like the transformation of the colonel. He starts out rough and inexperienced, not knowing the likes of his Regiment. But as the movie goes on, he warms up to the regiment, siding with them and being the leader they needed. I also would like to add the marvelous job the Harlem Boy's choir did, especially at the end with the assault on the Fort.
ReplyDeleteIn the trailer, all one can see is the soldiers marching, proud and ready to fight in the war. Music plays in the background and it excites you. It is very good marching music. From reading the book review and the article by one of the consultants, I get the feeling that this movie's purpose may not have been to show specifically the regiment's actions but rather all the discrimination against them. I think the movie was in Shaw's perspective for a good reason. It showed how prejudiced people were against blacks. Also I read on the review about how Trip-one of the former slaves and now a soldier in the 54th Massachusetts Regiment was whipped. Why was he whipped and by whom? I think that if he was whipped by Shaw for no good reason then that would show how much Shaw changed in the course of the movie from harsh and prejudiced to supporting the regiment.
ReplyDeleteGlory is easily the best war movie I have ever seen. Though I haven't seen many war movies, I generally dislike them, and so the fact that I liked this movie so much shows something about its worth. With the exception of the opening scene, at which I found myself cringing and wondering what the point of all this was, I felt the battle scenes were very powerful and dynamic. During the first battle the 54th encountered, I felt some of the excitement, fear, and even pride that the regiment likely felt at the time of the battle. Regarding Ebert's comments, though this claim does have validity, the depiction of the regiment from Shaw's point of view does allow for some extra story. The most important plot points are the depiction of the regiment's formation and the retelling of the events of a previous battle Shaw had fought in, which puts visions of the realities of war in the viewers mind throughout the entire training process of the regiment. This knowledge grants one a different view on the eagerness the regiment has to fight, and especially their carefree gleefulness upon receiving rifles. in addition, this decision makes the moment Shaw rips up his pay a little more powerful, showing that, while he leads the regiment, the regiment, in this moment, leads him, and he follows their example. The presence of these otherwise impossible plot points and nuances, in addition to the fact that Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington's performances outshine Mattew Broderick's, makes up for the irony of the film's POV.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the music was phenomenal -- especially the orchestral stuff. I don't like the choir music as much as some people seem to, but the music as a whole was top notch.
Eda -- Despite the fact that I didn't watch the movie, it seems very interesting, more of a common soldier perspective and social perspective rather than The Conspirators (which my period watched) which focused heavily on government and the law. I do wonder though: Why does Roger Ebert say that the movie is seen through the eyes of the 54th's white commanding officer, when according to the trailer, there are at least 3 principle black characters whose perspectives could've been explored? Does Ebert's questioning of this viewpoint ring true if one actually watches the movie? In addition, the trailer for Glory itself reveals little about what goes on it the movie, besides focusing on the black fighting unit, so does the movie go into the psyche of the characters within?
ReplyDeleteI watched the movie a couple of years ago and if I remember correctly, Ebert's critique of the film holds true. In the beginning of the film, it focuses solely on Officer Shaw. As for the black characters, they weren't really focused on except for a scene where they met up with I think Sherman's troops ransacking and destroying a Confederate Town.
DeleteAlthough I could see Ebert's arguements, I personally don't find any fault with it. There are many different ways a film can be portrayed and for the most part, Glory was made really well. I didn't mind the fact it focused more on the white commanding officer rather than the 54th Regiment of Mass. In fact, you can see how much Shaw actually cared for the African American troops in various scenes of the movie right up until the end.
It's true that the beginning of the film was from Shaw's point of view, but I think that the second of half of the film was mostly from the men's point of view (specifically Thomas, Trip, and Rawlins). There are several scenes of the men in their camp tents, privately discussing a lot of things among themselves, and one particularly important scene where Shaw and Trip have their heart-to-heart at the lake (and where Trip voices his opinion that it is a white man's war that the black man will not benefit from, essentially).
DeleteStill, I agree with your second point that even if the film had been written solely from Shaw's POV, that wouldn't necessarily have been a bad thing. I also liked how it captured Shaw's genuine affection for his soldiers.
Akira Taniguchi (period 3) - I wonder how the black soldiers were treated in the film and how exactly were the relationships between the black soldiers and other white soldier were like?
ReplyDeleteThe black soldiers at first were treated very disrespectfully. General Shaw actually brings in an Irish drill instructor who treats them very harshly (especially since we have learned in class that the Irish had conflicts with the blacks) in the beginning. However, I think towards the end, even the Irish instructor came to respect the men of the 54th because they were able to learn so quickly. Additionally, they did not get shoes or socks just because they were black (the white man in charge of the storage had claimed that there were none left). However, Shaw eventually went to the storage to make a ruckus and got eventually got shoes for his regiment. Later on, the 54th regiment is deployed to Georgia to do menial work. All the white men thought they would never get to fight in a battle because they are black. However, this all changes, when General Shaw confronts (and blackmails) his commanding officers. The 54th regiment is finally given a chance to go into battle and they prove themselves to be competent for they were successful. The men of the 54th regiment also receives the respect of the white soldiers. In an earlier scene, Trip (one of the soldiers of the 54th) had gotten into a rough encounter with a white soldier. This portrayed that there was tension between the white and black soldiers in the Civil War. However, when the men of the 54th march into the suicidal battle (the assault on Fort Wagner), Trip sees the white soldier that he had had a confrontation with earlier. The white soldier was standing on the side along with other white soldiers. In this scene, one can see that the white soldiers have come to respect the black soldiers for their courage and bravery.
DeleteAnthony Varshavskiy
ReplyDeleteThe trailer of the movie was as any other trailer that exists because it uses overly dramatic music and features familiar faces of famous actors. Seeing Morgan Freeman already promotes this movie's status because every one enjoys watching Freeman. The trailer also featured epic war battles, war cries, and other interesting scenes. Reading the New York Times article, I was very interested in the climax of the story that was explained in the review about Fort Wagner. I'm assuming that it's probably one of the best scenes in the movie and incorporates vivid details of the war and brutality. Therefore, I'm greatly persuaded to watch this movie and see it for myself because then I would be able to give a more detailed comment about it.
Anya Hargil (period 3) - My class watched Lincoln which although set during the last few months of the Civil War focused more on passing the 13th Amendment than the war itself. How did watching a film about the 54th regiment, a regiment of black soldiers, and their experiences and treatment during Civil War change your opinion and thoughts about the Civil War and the events surrounding it? Also, if there was one thing you could change about the film to make it more entertaining, more historically accurate, or more enjoyable in general, what would it be and why?
ReplyDeleteWhen one thinks of the Civil War, one normally think of the Gettysburg Address and Lincoln. However, African Americans also played a very important role. Thus, in regards to your first question, the film really emphasizes the role that African Americans played in the Civil War. In fact, Lincoln himself credited black troops for turning the tide of the war. In the movie, you definitely see their determination and courage. They are eager to go into battle and sacrifice their lives. Additionally, General Shaw even compliments them in a letter to his parents that he has never seen a regiment learn as fast as they have. The film really brings the blacks of the Civil War into the spotlight and as I've said, really emphasizes their role in the war. It makes one wonder, if African Americans did not participate in the war, would the Union still have won?
DeleteRebecca (Period 3) - To me, the trailer was quite captivating and also looked modern, even though it came out in 1989. Like Armani said, it definitely depicts the African-American soldiers in a very positive light for standing up for their countries and ideals, as well as to free their brothers and sisters. My absolute favorite part of the trailer was when General Shaw (I assume it is him, because it was a white man on a horse that looked quite commanding, but I could be wrong) ripped up his checks along with the other black soldiers because they were being paid less. I remember reading this in the Out of Many textbook and although it seems to be a minor detail in history to some, I was really excited to see that this was incorporated into the movie, and even showed in the trailer, indicating that it is one of the key moments. I wonder how that scene was depicted in the movie -- I'd assume it was very triumphant and all the soldiers and generals were unified in their cause to help the Civil War and refuse to be paid until their pay was equal to those of whites.
ReplyDeleteHowever, as Mr. Sandler said in the post, I'm a bit confused as to why the movie is told through the general's perspective, instead of through one of the soldiers. I feel that if the film centered around one black soldier, it would be more effective because the film is ultimately glorifying the black regiment. In addition, it would reflect more social revisionist history that our Out of Many textbook focuses a lot. Despite this, from the comments, it seems as if the movie was still very powerful and moving even though it centered around the white general rather than the black soldiers.
Oops! Sorry Mr. Sandler!!! I meant to say Period 2! I'm not sure why I typed 3 by mistake.
DeleteSisi (Period 2)- I agree that the story being told from the perspective of a black solider would highlight their role and bravery more But then you would lose the things you get out of Shaw's perspective. I also really like the scene where he rips up his check showing how much he truly cares about his regiment. Had it just been in a solider's perspective that scene may not have had the same weight. (I still don't really get how that worked though. Why didn't they just not pay the black soldiers? They were protesting their reduced wages, but in the time they were though of as inferior, so why wouldn't the government take that as an opportunity to save money and not be obligated to pay them at all.) Also they know so much more about Shaw so they can make it more historically accurate, where as with a black solider they would be fabricating alot of the details. I think having it switch between perspectives could be interesting.
DeleteChristopher Kim (period 2)
ReplyDeleteThe trailer of the movie and the NYT review of the movie was not convincing enough for me to really want to watch it. However, the many comments from period 6 that I've read really arouses my curiosity. There were even some people who stated that Glory was the best movie they've ever watched in their lives. If I could, I would love to watch the movie right now, and see if what many in period 6 are saying is true. I would definitely focus on the relationship between the black and white soldier when watching the film.
Wendy C.- Glory was a powerful and well-made film that really demonstrated the importance of African Americans in the Civil War. Even though historical films are generally not my cup of tea, this film was absolutely phenomenal. There were scenes in the film that made me sit on the edge of my seat and also scenes that were so moving that made me a bit teary eyed. There were several scenes in the film that were really memorable. For example, in the scene where Trip was being whipped in front of the whole regiment, I was cringing whenever he received a whip. The scene was so powerful because you can see that her was in a lot of pain, but he was unwilling to let loose tears (except for one). He did not want to show weakness. Even when I close my eyes now, I can still see Trip's face in my head. The war scenes in this film in particular were also extremely well-done. Even though they was very gruesome, they accurately portray what would happen in battle. I was sitting on the edge of my seat the entire time the war scenes were happening. In the war scenes, you see soldiers who lose their leg(s) and arm(s), as well as soldiers who went flying into the air due to bombs going off. However, even though these scenes were very graphic, they were very powerful. In the first battle that the 54th regiment fought in, you can definitely see the courage and heroism that they had. They were fighting with all their heart. A scene from that battle that was extremely memorable was when Thomas was shot and Shaw said that he needed to go back to Boston. However, Thomas refused. He made Shaw promise him that he would not send him back to Boston. This showed the great character that these African Americans possessed. They were soldiers who were full of determination and I cannot praise them enough for it.
ReplyDeleteThere was one character that I think went through a huge transformation: General Shaw. When the film first opens, we see that there is a battle going on, but Shaw is seen on the ground, covering himself from danger. He is not giving commands or anything but is just hoping that he himself would be safe. In fact, he lays there on the ground like a dead soldier. Afterwards, you see how traumatized he is from the battle. However, in the final scenes of the movie, you see that Shaw has changed. Especially in the scene where he is the first to charge up the hill (knowing that he would die) in order to inspire his regiment, you can see that his character really changed. He became incredibly brave. This in turn, inspired the men of the 54th to follow his example and charge forward.
In regards to Ebert's arguments, I do agree with him. However, I do believe that this film was well-done and that it paid the necessary tribute to the African Americans in the Civil War. It showed the African American culture fairly well (i.e., their singing around the camp fire, their faith in God, etc.). The film also put them in a positive spotlight. With that said however, I do think that had the movie been told in the perspective of the African American soldiers, then the message would have been stronger.
Anni Bangiev (Period 3) - Was the film, particularly the battle scenes, overly dramatic or did it accurately portray the violence? The trailer seemed somewhat ridiculous, with O Fortuna playing and dead bodies everywhere. Not that I don't enjoy action/bloody movies, but the trailer made everything seem far-fetched.
ReplyDeleteIvy - I agree with Eda on how the trailer doesn't really say much about the film. From what I gather, the movie focuses on the 54th regiment as they took part in the Civil War. The trailer reminds me of Saving Private Ryan - it's probably because of the focus on battles, etc - and I wonder how they compare. How accurately is the war portrayed in the movie?
ReplyDeleteYihua Wu (Period 3) - In Period 3, we watched Lincoln, in which two African American soldiers freely approach Lincoln and Lincoln talks to them normally without discrimination or racism. Of course, this is a purely fictional seem. Obviously, blacks, even in the army, were discriminated against. So I am wondering, considering how even northerners' questioned the African's abilities to fight before they proved their valor in battle, did this movie mention or show any discrimination towards these black soldiers in the very first black regiment by the white commander(s) or any other white person(s)?
ReplyDelete'Glory' definitely showed the discrimination towards black soldiers. (SPOILER ALERT) In one scene, the fact that pay for the black soldiers was cut down to $10 from the $13, a 'inferior' pay, caused a boycott of their paychecks from the black soldiers. In addition, the black soldiers were not given shoes until the white colonel forced the white military suppliers to send them shoes. These are only several examples; there are many more in the film. :)
DeleteGlory was rather inspiring. Everything from the music to the lighting to the emphasis on certain scenes, just everything was great. While the scenes were not ostentacious ,they were very aggresive and revisionist at times. Scenes like the sacking and burning of the town and the harsh treatment of soldiers all had a great effect on me. The 54th were almost treated as slaves at some points, such as the whipping of Trip, who only wanted shoes. They were treated as if they were uncivilized yet they were expected to be educated, shown when one soldier did not know his left from his right. The Union was evidently torn inside over the issue of slavery, as people like Shaw really respected and treated these men as if they were men, whereas some soldiers treated the blacks as if they were not men. It was gruesome to see the blood on the way to Fort Wagner, but it accurately depicted the struggle the soldier had to go through. They were more or less suicidal sacrafices, yet they only hoped to save their people. Trip represented these people best becuase he revealed the harsh realities of being a black soldier and he was not afraid to go against Shaw. Shaw almost brought tears to my eyes as
ReplyDeleteFrom seeing some clips online, the acting seems kind of bland (not like "Conspirator Group") and the whipping seems to not make him even move a muscle when it really hurts enough to make you involuntarily flinch, and shiver with pain.. But other than that, I agree that the perspective of the movie could have very greatly changed the view on the black soldiers of the regiment themselves, and especially combined with the unemotional acting, it was very hard to see how the soldiers lived and felt.
ReplyDeleteWhipping scene was very moving because Trip, the one who gets whipped, tries to hide his emotions. He is full of whip scars on his back, and when the Sergeant whips him, like Tiffani has mentioned, only one tear escapes his eyes and reveals his hurt and other mixed emotions. I understand where your questions are coming from because you did not watch the whole film, but I would say that Glory was very moving with full of emotions, especially starting from whipping to all the way to the end of the movie.
DeleteRegarding black perspective, many from 6th pd actually agreed that changing the viewpoint to entirely black POV would have made the movie a little bit more unorganized; I personally thought that the movie was not entirely from the white's POV, because there are many scenes in which only black soldiers come out.
I think although it would have been interesting to see the movie from the point of view of a black soldier, seeing the perspective of a white soldier gives a good insight on how black soldiers were viewed by the white soldiers. Since i have not seen the movie i would pose the question how would you describe the experience of black soldiers in the Union forces during the civil war. Also what was the response of Confederate sympathizers to the utilization of Black regiments?
ReplyDeleteEddie (period 2) - taking into account the radical change in perception of the Civil War by Hollywood from "Gone With the Wind", how does this film portray the Confederate cause? How does it depict the conditions of antebellum USA? Is antebellum USA even depicted - do the black soldiers have a story previous to their enrollment?
ReplyDeleteLise (pd. 6) I was just wondering if anyone knows if the film is completely based on historical facts. Did the death of colonel in charge actually inspire the black soldiers to push through the fort? Did the white colonel of the 54th actually put up a fight in the supplier's office for shoes for his soldiers? Did the white colonel of the 54th actually say that all the white officers would boycott their paychecks alongside the black soldiers of the 54th? Or are these scenes just fiction to make the film/plot more appealing?
ReplyDeleteHan Pd 2-Adding on to what Kai said, this movie looks like it is boring to the core. The trailer gave me the impression that the movie was filled with the excitement of the masses, battle scenes, and of course, Morgan Freeman. There didn't seem to be any real plot behind the movie and it gives the feeling of a cheap movie made to excite a average person, not to educate people about the 54th Massachusetts regiment. There was also two things about the movie that baffled me. First of all, the movie was told in the perspective of a white actor, while it revolves around a black regiment. This introduces the audience to biased/different views toward the regiment and it takes away from the potential of this movie. Secondly, I was surprised that there was no HD option to the trailer. Surely, a HD option would have enriched my experiences of watching the endless patriotic battle scenes of the movie. Overall, judging from the trailer and the reviews, there were a few things Glory did right. It captured the spirit of the African Americans going into the war and it serves as a good introduction to the topic of the role of African Americans during the Civil War. Furthermore, recruiting Morgan Freeman is possibly one of the best choices the film could have made.
ReplyDeleteI do agree the trailer was a bit dry (read: “really bad”), but as someone who has seen the movie, I can definitely say it is nothing like the trailer. The movie itself has a very good overarching plot, and impeccable character development (intellectuals become soldiers, former slaves become sergeants, etc). I found several scenes very touching--for example, when Trip, played by Denzel Washington, asks Shaw, "Who wins the war?" Even if the Union won, Shaw would go back to his big house and rich family, and the black soldiers would still be second class citizens, even after freeing slaves.
DeleteAs far as the story being told from the point of view of the white soldier, it's important to note that all commissioned officers in high ranks were white. Even when Shaw gives the Morgan Freeman character his sergeant's stripes, it's unofficial. For the sake of logic, I will risk making the extreme statement that before the 54th was created, there were exactly zero black soldiers in the US army who were trained in marching, fighting and actually had uniforms and shoes. There were a few AA soldiers in the Revolutionary War, but by this point, they are all dead. Even in the War of 1812 and the beginning of the Civil War, the tasks of AAs in the army involved manual labor, chores, etc. In Glory, when the 54th regiment trains, many of the soldiers don't know their right foot from left. A completely black regiment with no experienced leadership (in this case, white soldiers) would be the blind leading the blind.
While I can see reasons why some would prefer an all-black cast, I feel that the few white characters such as Shaw and Montgomery were a reminder that this was still very much a society in transition. Yes, there was a black regiment...HOORAY! However, they were underpaid, still regarded as second class citizens, still headed by a white leader (allegory to the slave-master/soldier-Colonel relationship further referenced in the movie), and their white leader had to resort to blackmailing Colonel Montgomery to allow them go into action, as opposed to doing heavy labor, servants work, and looting towns (Montgomery says to some effect during a looting scene that they are basically monkeys in uniform...not hooray).
Shaw’s POV shows this avant garde regiment in the eyes of someone who was raised in a white-dominant society. This isn’t our era, where African Americans serve in integrated militaries, are appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State and lead the National Security Advisory. There are no Colin Powells in Shaw’s life and I think it was interesting to see someone in the white elitist strata warm up to the idea of leading a black regiment. He isn’t a black abolitionist and he isn’t a white master who values his dogs over African Americans. He’s just an average white guy watching a nation change. While this movie is about breaking a mold, it also shows the reality that very often, there are several obstacles to overcome. The Civil War took place in the 1860s and takes an entire century for the Civil Rights movement to gain momentum and end segregation. Even now, in 2014, there are still class-race divides. Glory is representative of the truth of the situation, that moving ahead is a slow process, and it's never perfect.
I enjoyed watching the film Glory very much. As someone who doesn't cry during movies often, I was not expecting to find myself on the brink of tears (on multiple occasions) when watching this film. What affected me most was the sheer bravery of the 54th regiment. When Shaw volunteered his men to lead the assault on Fort Wagner, he knew very well that it was a suicide mission, but that didn't matter to him (or to his men) because it was an opportunity for them to prove they were just as capable as any other regiment. Even the white soldiers who gave them trouble earlier in the film recognize the 54th regiment's courageousness and fearlessness in the face of imminent death, evident in their cheers of "Give them hell, 54th" when the black soldiers are marching off to battle. I think the film did a very good job of demonstrating the bond between the soldiers. As Trip (Denzel Washington's character) says, the regiment is his family, which was true for many of the black soldiers at the time. Many of them did not have families to go back to, and the kinship they felt was part of what gave them the strength to continue fighting. They were fighting for one another and for their rights. They fully devoted themselves to the army and their regiment, working tirelessly to improve themselves, even when they were subject to their drill instructor’s various harsh and racist comments.
ReplyDeleteAnother scene that I found particularly moving was when Trip takes the initiative to grab the Union flag and rush at the Confederate soldiers after Shaw is killed in front of the regiment. While all the other men seem somewhat shocked, devastated, and unsure of what to do next, Trip charges straight at the enemy, serving as a rallying point for the rest of the men (who quickly follow suit).
I agree with Angela, I find the claim that females wouldn't like Glory because of the violence, and would prefer a romantic plot, to be ridiculous. I believe demonstrating the brutality of war is an essential part of any war movie, especially one about the Civil War- the bloodiest conflict in American history. I thought the violence was not excessive; there was no violence just for the sake of showing violence, each explosion and dead body was effective in making the movie realistic.
Alyson Liang (Period 3)-
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the trailer of this film, it is definitely eye catching and dramatic. However, I do question the authenticity of the method of combat during the war. The trailer shows the troops marching and fighting in the traditional linear warfare. However, I know that trench warfare was used in the Civil War.
Another thing I question is the relationship between the whites and the African Americans. The trailer shows a kind of bond, a sort of brotherhood, that forms between the whites and the African Americans during their time in the army. However, although many people agreed that slaves should be set free, they did not agree in total social equality. This is shown in the first scene of the film "Lincoln," where two African American Union soldiers were questioning Lincoln about their pay. Therefore I have to question the validity of the portrayal of the relationship between the whites and African Americans in the Union Army.
I'm not too sure about the military tactic used in the Civil War, but I think trench warfare was only developed later on in the war. I think that this movie did a sufficient job of portraying the relationship between the whites and the blacks. The bond between white and blacks were really only present with Shaw, who was an abolitionist, and when the 54th was making its way down to the fort. This was when everyone knew that all the 54th was going headfirst into a suicidal battle. During some other scenes though, many whites did express their belief that blacks really should never have the same social equality as whites do. As soldiers, the Africans did not receive much needed supplies until their commander blackmailed an officer who was in charge; the simply were not cared for and were not even given the same expectations of being able to fight in actual combat.
DeleteAngela [Period 2] - Did this film accurately portray black soldiers and did it match up with discussions and textbook readings that you had outside of the film or were there surprising elements? Did the film show how black soldiers were denied many of the privileges that their white counterparts had? Would this film have been better told through the perspective of a black soldier as opposed to a white commanding officer? How did this film portray the South? (In The Conspirator, the film appeared to be sympathetic toward the North.)
ReplyDeleteIn Hae Yap
ReplyDeleteThere are few films that I truly enjoy so much as to be able to watch them over and over again. Glory will definitely be added to that list of films; it was an excellent film
not only for its artistic merits but also its value as an enriching historical experience.
Initially, however, I thought Glory was merely going to be (as Ting said earlier) a "cliche war film," but as the movie progressed, I became more and more concerned for the welfare of not just the 54th Regiment as a whole, but also its individual soldiers - especially Thomas (Andre Braugher), an educated freeman who joins the regiment naively unaware of the realities of a soldier's life.
Thomas is, debatably, perhaps the most interesting character in the film. In the beginning, he is a prim and proper Boston freeman, whose intellectual idealism galvanizes him into joining the war effort. He is instantly juxtaposed with the other men, most of whom are illiterate slaves - in his first interactions with the other recruits, Thomas reads a book by transcendentalists, and Jupiter (Jihmi Kennedy) asks if the book contains pictures. He cowers and cries during the tough army training under a tough-as-bricks, non-nonsense Irish commander (who provides some comical relief throughout this mostly serious movie: "Bonny Prince Charles and his toy bayonet!"), and is made fun of mercilessly by Trip (Denzel Washington). Worst of all, his old friendship with Colonel Shaw (Matthew Broderick) seems to have been all but forgotten by the latter, who must keep his distance as a superior officer.
By the end of the movie, however, Thomas is a proud Union soldier, and we witness his new courage and combat skills in the final assault on Fort Wagner. Before the battle, while the other soldiers, all former slaves, sing spirituals, Thomas is initially unable to join in. By the end of the song, however, Thomas has joined in the singing, pride and joy shining in his eyes - he has become one of the other men, despite his different background. This scene, in fact, reminded me of a similar one in 12 Years a Slave, when northerner Solomon Northup similarly watches on as his fellow slaves sing a spiritual, eventually joining in at the end. He, too, finally comprehends the powerful sense of connection, a drive to endure hardships and live life to its fullest that these southern blacks possess.
It is in the battle at Fort Wagner that we witness the culmination of all the teamwork, determination, and pride that were being built in the regiment throughout the movie. To me, the most emotional part of the movie was on the beach before the 54th charged, when Shaw was preparing to die as he looked out at the gulls on the waves, and Thomas stepped forward to carry the flag if necessary; I felt so connected to the characters at this point that I felt so proud of all of them. And during the battle scene itself, which I think was very realistically portrayed, I could feel my heart drop every time a character I knew fell (especially Shaw). Even though I already knew that the assault was historically a rout for the Union, I was still on the edge of my seat the entire time. The ending where Shaw ends up in a lowly ditch with all his men, instead of his own separate grave, was an especially poignant ending.
Terry Zhao (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteThis film seems very action-packed! Unlike Lincoln which was more slow pace and dramatic, Glory seems to have the attributes of a movie that will keep the viewer on the edge of his seat (Lincoln was a great movie nonetheless). However, what struck me was Gregory J.W. Urwin's comment stating that he could compile as long a list of Glory's historical inaccuracies and that the movie has about 50% of history correctly portrayed. I would like to know what was displayed inaccurately and that could really affect my decision on whether I would enjoy the movie or not.
Sungwoo [Period 2]: The review mentions that the movie is told from the point of view from the white commanding officer. As I haven't watched this film, how do people know that this is told from the point of view from the white commander? Is there some kind of cinematic techniques that was used to portray the black soldiers from the point of view of the white commander? What other features of this movie illustrate this point of view?
ReplyDeleteMohammad Chhipa (Period 2) - I did not enjoy this trailer. It did not really give me a sense of the background present during the time of the war. All I really saw in the trailer was war fronts, with no dialogue or anything to give me that impression that the film could be much more than a volley of cannon explosion effects.In history movies, if you go into battle after battle just changing scenes, to a viewer who has no knowledge of American History, the movie would leave a confused expression across that viewer's face. This movie seems to go beyond what happens in the government during the time and focuses or the war to arouse feelings of sympathy from audience for the soldiers. By describing war front atrocities, the movie is highlighting the Union struggles for the nation.
ReplyDeleteSanam Bhatia (Period 2)-
ReplyDeleteI remember watching Glory back in 8th grade when we were learning about the Civil War. Although we didn't go into the historical context too much in terms of the role of the 54th Regiment at Fort Wagner, but I remember how powerful the film was. It told the often hidden story of the involvement of African American men by giving them faces and personalities and painting a picture of their experiences.
The trailer includes the incredibly important moment where the soldiers as well as Colonel Shaw refusing their pay. Plus, in the actual film, the end scene depicts Fort Wagner (if I recall correctly); it is a brutal and violent battle and at the end most of the regiment ends up dead or captured, with the heartbreaking view of a mass grave full of the men's bodies. This moment as well as others throughout the film really pay homage to the African American men who played a role in the Civil War and depicts how they made strides in achieving freedom from the tiniest to the largest ways.
Jack Ye(Pd 3)- After watching the trailer, I felt that the film would have had a lot more violence and action, as compared to the film Lincoln. After reading the New York Times review, I felt that the film would have been more inspirational and moving as well as it focused on the battles. As for the point of view coming from a White commanding officer, I do feel that it would have been better if it had come from a Black soldier, since the film focuses on their involvement in the war. I feel that the point of view coming from the White officer, and the inspiration scenes from the trailer show how even in 1989, people were still trying to lighten the truth and paint scenes that are simply Hollywood's images, and so I wonder if the scenes in this film can be trusted or not.
ReplyDeleteTina Zhu, Period 3
ReplyDeleteCompared to my class's film centered on Lincoln and his political struggles, a movie seemingly based on the war front and the African American soldiers sounds refreshing. However, I feel that the legal breakthrough Lincoln achieved through patience, cunning, and persistence was more significant to the outcome of the war.
Cole Reschke - Personally I found this film to be quite enjoyable. Emotion was prevalent throughout the film, while the evolution of character throughout the 54th was absolutely incredible. That Trip says that the 54th is "the only family I've got" is a real testament to how close the regiment became and provides a sense of humanity to a film that at first glance looks to be a typical war film. In response to Ebert's opinion that the films point of view should be different, I say that I don't have a problem with that the film is from the point of view from Colonel Shaw. I feel like because of the time period that the film is set in, it is more relevant to see how the white man reacts to the first African American regiment than how the soldiers view their experience. There are hundreds of war movies that depict how a soldier goes through a war, and the uniqueness of this film would've been partially lost if the point of view changed.
ReplyDeleteJulian Kalogerakis –
DeleteIts an interesting point to make, arguing the value of the least conventional point of view. I agree. The value of Shaw's perspective is that you can take the most stirring or striking aspects of his regiments' development in character as the film progresses. Although the film's (few) critics often argue that the movie fails to fully represent the perspective of a soldiers in the 54th regiment, I think it is more important to tell the story of the Colonel, who had the incredibly unique experience of fighting and working aside black soldiers; Shaw was at the forefront of the first iteration of egalitarianism in the United States.
Teresa Chen (PD 2): The trailer might not give the best teaser as to what the entire movie is about, but I can tell already that the story to unfold is extremely dramatic and emotional. I applaud this film for taking a new perspective of The Civil War by portraying the stories of the black soldiers who sacrificed their lives in the name of a unified nation, and for making it known that blacks contributed greatly to the war effort.
ReplyDeleteResponding to Ebert's stance, I definitely agree with him. Just like the focus on the white officials in Lincoln, I don't understand why the movie would be told through the eyes of the white commanding officer. The emphasis is on the contribution of blacks to The Civil War, and therefore, I think there would have been a stronger and more powerful impact if the movie was told in the perspective of one of the black soldiers in the regiment. This would create a more personal and emotional story that everyone in the audience will fall for.
Christopher Wennendy - As I have only seen the trailers, I wanted to ask about the major problem of the film.
ReplyDeleteWas seeing the film through the eyes of a White commander that much of a problem? Also, did the film seem really
overly dramatic? From the trailer, there was fire, and a large amount of people in each scene, which made it feel
as if it does not focus on a few characters, but tries to tell a historically accurate story. Most importantly,
how was Morgan Freeman's acting?
I think the trailer and the two articles portray different ideas of what the movie is about. While the trailer focuses on the soldiers in the 54th marching and fighting, the reviews discuss social issues faced by the soldiers as well as historical inaccuracies in the movie. A lot of people seem really confused and upset that the movie was filmed from the point of view of Colonel Shaw but to me it makes sense because, in agreement with Armani, it shows the true discrimination that African Americans faced throughout the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteAnnie Lin (Pd 3)-
ReplyDeleteWhile watching Lincoln I found the presence of African Americans to be lacking in the sense that there was no story through their eyes. I feel like this movie would be really interesting just seeing the place of a regiment totally made up of African Americans within the war.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGeorge Triantafillou(pd.3)-After the trailer I feel that this film is definitely more action packed and fast paced compared to Lincoln. Its also interesting that the point of view is coming from a White commanding officer while focusing on these black soldiers. My question is how accurately were they portrayed when compared to the textbook and historical fact?
ReplyDeleteJackie Wang (Period 2)- Glory looks like it will be an action packed movie filled with memorable scenes. . My biggest question is did the movie actually do the African Americans justice or did Hollywood distort history again? The trailer seems to be misleading showing how happy/excited the Black soldiers were. The blacks seem to respect their white commander and vice versa, suggesting a good relationship between blacks and whites. However, Glory is highly praised and according to these comments it has lived up to its hype. I’ve seen this movie a long time ago and didn't seem to care much for it at that time. I am going to rewatch it and see if i can better relate to it now that I am older.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTony Fung (PD.2)
ReplyDeleteThe movie certainly seems focused on the valiant efforts of the soldiers. When compared to The Conspirator, they are very different simply because the events are different. I'm curious as to how the film balances scenes on the battlefield with scenes about politics, or home life. Even the title Glory seems to make it focus on the battlefield, so it would be interesting to see how events on the battlefield affect civilians and how much glory is really gained by these soldiers.
Nashia Choudhury- (Pd. 3)- The movie seems really interesting from the trailer and reviews. I watched Lincoln in my class and during the first few minutes, we saw one of the only few black characters, a soldier, converse with Lincoln and ask for better pay. I was wondering whether he was shown/mentioned within Glory and if so, how was Lincoln portrayed?
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Lincoln, the film that my class watched, two African-American soldiers were speaking to Lincoln about equal pay, the vote, and various other aspects about rights for colored people. Are their personalities and attitude sinilar to the way the soldiers behaved in Glory?
ReplyDeleteTerrance Liang (Period 3)
ReplyDeleteThe trailer seems far off from what I expected. If I had watched the trailer alone, I'd expect the movie to be a simple war movie: a bunch of men begin to bond with one another and then they eventually go out to the battlefield together. This makes me question, since the trailer heavily emphasized the warfare, how effectively did the movie portray the struggles and sentiment of the African Americans? Many students did seem to say that there were themes such as inequality, but were they strong? (as strong as movies like 12 Years a Slave?) According to some reviews, the movie also seemed to be partially inaccurate (as most historical films are) and was also told in the point of view of a white man. Did the inaccurate scenes or the POV of Shaw affect the movie (positively or negatively)?
[Alex Huang] I thoroughly enjoyed this film for its effectiveness in showcasing the rise in courage of the Massachusetts 54th Regiment, the first of its kind, the first to not only encompass but embrace the African American soldiers in it - we see this evidently by the end of the movie. It wasn't just a regiment of African-American soldiers - it was a regiment of African American soldiers from all walks of life. We have Searles who starts off as an educated black man, but one who, as Aaron said, had a dormant fighting spirit, transform into someone who was truly courageous - and some of his actions that showcased that were truly memorable. We see Trip (played by Denzel Washington), who has a reckless vibe to him, develop an ability to channel that recklessness and bravery in healthy and helpful ways - alas he died in gunfire shortly after along with all the other notable members of the regiment.
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of the high amounts of violence - the violence was instrumental to showing the true colors of the war. Every flying ligament, flying body, and splattered head was a testament to the harsh realities of the war. Every bit of it was needed. In fact I agree with Henry - there should have been even more violence.
As for Ebert's argument, I would wholeheartedly agree but there are external factors we must consider - informatively speaking seeing the events through the eyes of a black man would be a better option; however, economically speaking such an investment would be risky for the time period, since we weren't as open minded back then as we are now.
All in all I thoroughly enjoyed the film for its accuracy, mind to details of the war, and emotional appeal, despite having gone through the dreaded Hollywood filter. The cast was awesome as well. This is something I'd definitely like to do again in the future should we have the time.
I saw Glory in middle school, but all I remembered is the very bloody battle at the end. The fighting scenes are definitely intriguing and violent. Glory shows a lot of hardships on the battlefield, which is a dramatic contrast to the political talks in Lincoln. However, I wonder whether the hardships shown are accurate. And does the movie show the unequal treatment for the African Americans in the army? (I don't remember) I am probably going to watch the movie again so that I can compare the POV of General Shaw to that of Lincoln.
ReplyDeleteI haven't watched Glory, but I do agree with Eva. Glory does provide a contrast to Lincoln. It's more focused on the lives of the black soldiers in the 54th regiment. In Lincoln, we saw the political side of things. Most of the army-related scenes were just of bodies piled up. We didn't really get a sense of the lives and struggles of those people. Yet, this movie seems to show more into the lives of those soldiers, their struggles, and why they fought.
DeleteRyan Kim (Pd. 2)
ReplyDeleteSo many responses....
I watched this film back when I was in 8th grade, and I remember that I was deeply moved back then. Though the movie is not completely historically accurate, I enjoyed the film because it focused on the essence of what the 54th regiment was: an African-American regiment serving to fight for their country.
The film is effective in tugging at the viewer's hearts, through the battle scenes, moments of equality between the whites and blacks (when Captain Shaw tears his own paper of profit). The film also has a stellar cast, and the plot/character development made this an enjoyable film.
In regards to Ebert's point, I have to disagree. Through Shaw's eyes, we are able to see the conflict of the establishment of the first black regiment. In Shaw's eyes, we are able to see a wider scope of the conflict of the relationship between the white community and the African American community. We are able to see the conflict of the government in this time through Shaw, and the growth that they have. If this movie was in the view of just the black soldiers, it would be boring, because it would only portray them as heroes/martyrs. But putting it in Shaw's eyes makes the conflict more messy, and makes it more beautiful in the end when the white soldier and African American soldier die together for the Union, for the United States, at Fort Hood.
David Bang(Period 3):
ReplyDeleteI was first drawn in by the dramatic orchestra or choir music that was playing in the trailer. This movie seems to really capture the spirit and experiences of the black regiments, though with some historical inaccuracies. The shouting, charging, shooting, and fire looks glorious and all, but I used to question why African Americans were so eager to join in this carnage. Then I realized, that the 54th Regiment and other black regiments were so eager to fight because they saw America as their country, and they believed by standing on the battle field with whites, they would be that much closer to being more equal to the whites, despite the whites' dislikes of giving up their advantages of skin color. I was really shocked that African Americans were not able to stand side by side with their white brothers in arm, until a century after the Civil War. Was this because the white people did not want African Americans to see themselves as on an equal standing with whites and to demand more equal rights, such as they did when they demanded pay equal to the $13 per month pay of the white, or was it because they feared that if African Americans had guns in their hand, they could violently get their rights? I am also curious as to why a white officer's perspective was the main focus of the movie. Was this because this who allowed for white biases to be depicted so that people could later see the change the officer had in his opinion of the blacks, when he saw the hardworking and brave black soldiers fighting?
Ian (pd 3)
ReplyDeleteThe trailer that I watched was extremely dramatic and seemed to invoke a sense of patriotism (especially the music and clips of marching troops). It was pretty cool to hear of a Hollywood movie that didn't simply focus on what the white man accomplished but also the usually unheard black contribution to the war. Since it is a Hollywood film, I do expect inaccuracies in some of the historical facts but the film itself looks really exciting and action packed.
The trailer to me makes this film look like an epic war film similar to Saving Private Ryan. I have some questions about the film: Is this film historically accurate? After watching this film, did you learn anything new about the Civil War conflict? Since I'm a fan of battles I'll make sure to check this out anyway.
ReplyDeleteDerek Tsui (pd 3) - After watching the trailer and reading the various reviews and comments made, I definitely see a sharp contrast in this film with "Lincoln" in terms of African American portrayal. In "Lincoln", they were given very little screen time, and they were not nearly as active as those in "Glory". This film seems very interesting, and even more so after watching Lincoln and noting its historical deficiencies, such that I can really get a complete sense of all of the contributors to the historical chapter that is the Civil War.
ReplyDeleteThis film looks really good, and I would have preferred to have watched it instead of Lincoln. I like how the film moderates its revisionist focus by having a white commander as a protagonist. Shows how black people were not treated as equals during the war, and still had to be subservient to white men even when they fought with them, which I feared may be lost in the movie.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEric Kolbusz (Pd 2)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Chris Wennendy's comment that the movie seems to be focusing on a lot of people- how does it manage to be emotionally appealing while doing so? I assume a Civil War movie this famous is emotionally powerful as well as somewhat accurate. How does this movie stand out compared to the countless other recreations and films produced of the War? I'd really like to see how it balances facts and emotion on the battlefield to keep the viewer's interest.
Courtney Velez (Pd. 3)
ReplyDeleteI feel as though "Glory" is the missing half of "Lincoln". "Lincoln" presents the steps towards slavery's destruction through the government, while "Glory" shows the steps through the African American involvement in war. If we were to combine the two movies into one, we would have a more precise vision of what steps occurred during the Civil War to bring about the freedom of slaves.
I'm interested in how the men in this regiment would have viewed Lincoln's claim that the Thirteenth Amendment only applied to those who were intelligent, working, or veterans of the war. Would they feel as if this war was a lost cause, for they didn't fully get the freedom and equality they craved? Or would they see this as a stepping stone towards the full extent of freedom and equality?
Kevin Liang
ReplyDeleteI absolutely loved the way the movie was laid out. Yes, the director could’ve taken opted to make this a movie full of action with all the different battles of the war, but he decides to view the story of the 54th Regiment from a more social standpoint. I was really impressed that the director included many historically accurate scenes, and it truly brings history into color. Whereas our Out of Many Textbook gives around 3 sentences regarding the story of the black soldiers refusing pay until they received equal treatment, the director really delve deep into the emotional aspects of the action. The acting of the black soldiers truly portrayed what a ridiculous thing it was to pay black soldiers less. Their emotional outcry even forces our main protagonist, Robert Shaw, to rip up his pay check to show a sign of respect to his subordinates.
Although I somewhat agree that this movie could have been better told through the point of view of the black soldiers, I can see where the movie director was coming from. At the end of the day, this is still a movie and what movies are supposed to do in order to sell is to entertain. By following the story of the main protagonist, Robert Shaw, from being a terrified solider on the front lines of Antietam all the way to commanding an all-black Regiment, we really get a sense of relation and entertainment value. We get to see this protagonist evolve through stages, and as an audience, we get a lot of satisfaction by following his story. For example, Shaw is completely molded by how his lower-ranking officers wish to treat the black soldier. He wants to follow Forbes’ idea of treating the soldiers fairly, thus producing good morale, but at the same time he realizes that this does not produce good soldiers. On the other hand, he also sees the effectiveness of Montgomery’s, the Irish-American drill instructor, tough training that molds the regiment into a combat-ready force, but at the same time, he questions the morality of treating the soldiers so harshly. By the end of the movie, we see shaw making his own decisions as an actual leader, rather than putting the advice of others into action. I really loved the fact that we see Shaw constantly not just trying to erase the boundaries set is society between the white higher-ranking officers and the black infantry, but prove to other regiments that blacks can be as disciplined an honorable as anyone else. Shaw promotes Rawlins to Sergeant Major, he goes all out to get proper footwear for his force, and he even volunteers his regiment to be the first force to attack Fort Wagner to prove to the other regiments of their bravery. Shaw’s work finally pays off during their march to Fort Wagner, where a white soldier of another regiment stands on the side, watching the 54th march by, finally screaming, “Give ‘em hell 54th!” showing the respect gained by the white soldiers for the black regiment.
I also really loved the music that went along with each of the scenes. At the very end during the invasion of Fort Wagner where Shaw is killed in front of his entire regiment, blood-pumping music starts playing while all the black soldiers began running out of cover into enemy fire, uphill, to take the Fort that their respected leader DIED for. This scene was really emotional for me since, throughout the movie, we see that Shaw cares deeply for his regiment, respects them, and treats them in a way most other white officers wouldn’t have (As in the case of Forbes – he treated them with respect, but not enough to be sure that they were actually going to be put into combat). Finally in this scene, we see the black regiment reciprocating Shaw’s emotions back towards their leader, willing to die from enemy fire for their leader’s cause.
Wendy Huang (period 3)- This movie is clearly very different from Spielberg’s “Lincoln.” While “Lincoln” is slow and attracts the audience through its hidden context, “Glory” seems to be extremely action-packed. I agree with Courtney in that if these two films were put together, we would get a better understanding of the roles that both races played in history. As said in the above, the 54th Regiment’s experience is told through the perspective of its white commanding officer. Does a White man’s perspective in this film still accurately portray the experiences of the black soldiers?
ReplyDeleteTomin (Period 3) - For those who have seen this film, do you think that the invented men in the 54th regiment served as actual characters, or simply caricatures of presumable black figures at the time, and to what end? Do you think that the minds behind the movie wanted certain characters to function as foils to prove some higher message or were the varied personalities presented within the group more to foster an image of unity?
ReplyDeleteSharon Kang (Period 2)
ReplyDeleteJudging by the trailer, the movie seems really focused on the battles. However if this movie was focused on the 54th Massachusetts, why wasn't it told in a point of view of a black soldier in that regiment? (Agreeing with Ebert's argument here.) Also when the historian-consultant said that "Glory" was only a moderate winner at the box office because it focused on a black regiment, what does it say about people today? Would it have been a hit if it had focused on a white regiment?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@If the 54th Regiment, among other African American units, had fought so bravely during the Civil War, why did it take so long for black soldiers to be treated equal to white soldiers?
DeleteWell, whites were not accustomed to treating blacks like equals, but their bravery in battle, if it indeed was similar to the portrayed one, definitely accelerated the coming of the equality. Good questions though, the second one is particularly intriguing.
Annique pd 2:
ReplyDeleteCommenting on the NY Times Review: "The movie adds a little raping to the sequence and quickly becomes far more hysterical and melodramatic than the same event reported"-- what is a "little raping?"the tone from the statement is very off putting and makes it seem as if a "little rape" is not a big deal.
some questions: Can a white's man perspective accurately portray what a Black soldier's experience? Was the film biased against/for the Union or Confederacy?
The "little raping" scene was with a black soldier (one of the contrabands) assault one of the women in the looting/burning of Darien. The soldier does not get far as he is quickly shot by his commanding officer, Montgomery. I think the reason why the NY Times calls it hysterical is because afterwards, the woman's mother shouts racist remarks at the black soldiers even though she knows that they heavily overpower her.
DeleteI think that a white man's perspective cannot explain the black soldier's perspective of the war, but it can certainly portray the glory of the soldiers' courage and skill. If a white commanding officer could see that black soldiers were capable of fighting like white soldiers and even going as far as to join in on the soldiers' ripping of paychecks, we should be able to respect the soldiers in the 54th regiment, which I think is the motive of this film.
This film is definitely biased for the Union as it glorifies one of the brave regiments that fought for the Union. In addition, we are made to believe that the Union assault on the Confederate Fort Wagner was the right thing to do and that the attack by the 54th Regiment was to be remembered.
While the topic of the 54th regiment sounds really interesting, I feel like the trailer has made the movie sound really boring in comparison to other people's comments. In addition, according to the NYT review the least effective scenes are the historically true ones. It makes me wonder how many historical inaccuracies are present in this one film simply to make it more dramatic and interesting. Also, was the movie based off anything, like for example a soldier of the 54th regiment's journal?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the trailer makes the movie seem boring because it doesn't really show the emotional aspects and the journeys that each character goes through in their time on the regiment. When I saw the trailer after seeing the movie, I thought was was watching a trailer for a different movie. It focuses a lot on the action, which is historically accurate, but not on the interactions between characters.
DeleteFrom one of the NY Times review, it says, "Kevin Jarre's good, lean screenplay is based on Colonel Shaw's letters and on two books, Lincoln Kirstein's ''Lay This Laurel'' and Peter Burchard''s ''One Gallant Rush.''
Danny Qiu - Glory represented a film of not only just about a black regiment in the Union army, but also a journey that characters experience. As mentioned by Inhae and Aaron, characters such as Thomas and Shaw grow and mature during their time leading up to the battle at Fort Wagner. Thomas, an intellectual man who's weak figure impedes him from being like his fellow soldiers, ultimately finds the courage inside of him to charge into battle and carry the Union flag. Shaw, a veteran of the Battle of Antietam, was not prepared mentally to take a position as colonel and throughout the movie, finds himself being guided by others–Forbes on the treatment of black soldiers, and later Trip/Rawlins on getting shoes for the regiment. The growth in character was what made this film emotional and breath-taking. As I followed the journey taken by the characters, I felt that I could relate to the feelings and thoughts of the soldiers and that only made the movie more interesting. Character growth is an important factor in literature and this movie did a great job at showing it.
ReplyDeleteI found Shaw to be my favorite character in the movie. Since the story is told form his point of view, we were able to look into the private actions that he did such as writing letters to his family back in Boston for advice and later, requests. We are given much insight from these letters as they tell us what Shaw is realizing as he spends more time with the colored regiment. From a white man's perspective, colored soldiers are inferior, disorganized, and incompetent. However in one of Shaw's letters, I recount, he mentions that he has never seen anything like the colored soldiers before–their drive to fight and how fast they learn. Shaw goes from having his doubts about the colored regiment to being proud of them and even goes on to propose that the 54th be selected to lead the charge because his men were up for it. I felt that if all white men could experience what Shaw experienced, blacks would not be segregated as much. Shaw found great respect in his soldiers, going from treating them as a superior officer to hearing their concerns about shoes. Throughout his tie as colonel, he also grows as a person. Initially, he is unsure of what to do and he seems rather lost. He is mostly guided by others, such as by his friend Forbes, who points out the overly-strict way the drillmaster had treated the black soldiers. Later, Shaw acts on his own, starting with having his regiment transferred into battle and volunteering them for the assault on Fort Wagner. Whenever Shaw struggled, I felt his frustration and with his successes and initiatives, I felt proud of what he was accomplishing.
In regards to Ebert's argument that the film should be told from the POV of the black soldiers, I disagree. Not only would it be bad for sales as a block-buster movie, but also because it would not be able to accurately show the mindset of white commanding officers throughout the film. These officers started with being unsure of how well the colored regiment could perform and ended with being satisfied with their regiment's skill. This film was meant to glorify the bravery and unwavering character of the black soldiers, and if the main character, a white man, was able to see it, then surely others would be able to do so as well.
The director has done an incredible job with this film and has made it enjoyable, relatable, and breath-taking with the action, music, and choice of characters. I would definitely watch this film again.
Glory was an inspiring movie, with an phenomenal music score, and cast of actors. The assault of Fort Wagner was the most inspiring movie scene I have witnessed. The entire 4 minutes or so seemed like an apocalyptic fight to the death. This battle really showed not only Shaw's growth as a leader and a man, but also the growth of the soldiers of the 54th. When we first watch Shaw in the Battle of Antietam, I thought he was an incompetent and cowardly commanding officer, but Fort Wagner changed my opinion radically. Watching all the members of the 54th charge in and getting mowed down gripped my gaze like a worm on a hook. While it was unfortunate that Shaw died, his brave charge forward really showed his devotion to his men and the selflessness shown throughout the film. My favorite character would probably be one of the black men from the 54th, but it's very difficult to pick a favorite one, because all of them were so unique and entertaining in their personalities. But the ones that stuck out to me the most in the final battle were Silas Trip, and Thomas, Shaw's childhood friend. Watching Silas pick up the flag and rally the men really showed the devotion the 54th had to their sadly deceased commander, and the respect they showed each other, something that many Americans probably would not have expected in the film. When Silas was shot, he had the same stone face he had when was being flogged, even in the face of death, he did not show his emotions. Thomas was portrayed as a weak soldier, being called "the worst man in the regiment", but the scene where he manhandles and stabs the Confederate soldier with his rifle and bayonet harkens back to the scene where the Irish commanding officer was drilling him. Also, throughout the Fort Wagner scene, his warcries can be heard, showing the fearlessness and progress. While it is unfortunate that many of the main characters suffered a death they did not deserve, they changed my view of black regiments drastically. As for Roger Ebert's opinion of the film, I think that that was just nonsense and thinking a little too much. The film was fantastic the way it was, and although it was perhaps shown through the eyes of a white man, it was just as effective, if not more. Overall, the film, Glory, was inspiring and eye opening, showing the bravery of not only the 54th Regiment, but of black Union soldiers, and also shedding light on the truly amazing man, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw.
ReplyDeleteWhy do you think prejudice ran so deep as to undermine practicality on the battlefield?
ReplyDelete-Andrey Prigov
Honestly, that is the same question that I had when I read through the "true story" and the reviews. While I understand that whites might be distrustful of blacks, when you are on a battlefield you fight together. Why would they risk a loss just because a white and a black couldn't work together. I know I am looking at this through a 21st century perspective, but the question is still the same.
-Konrad Krasucki