329-2012--Week 7 Questions/Comments

Things the movie got right
Race Relations

I thought the movie did a really good job throughout; the military aspects were well done, the historical elements like the Confiscation Acts were pretty consistent, and they handled race relations very well. You got the white soldiers who "would rather have a hog than a ****** because at least you can eat the hog" and the corporal who talked back to Morgan Freeman's character, but by the end are cheering the 54th on. Also Major Forbes says that "the Irish aren't fond of the colored" which was pretty true; the Irish were basically the lowest social rung and saw freed blacks as competition for the worst waged jobs, so I understand they tended to look down on African Americans. --Carrie

I noticed that in the film racial interactions were not “sugar coated”. The distain with which the African Americans were treated was accurately portrayed, with the unit being forced to work as manual labor and getting paid less than the average white soldier; the cast did not even shy away from using derogatory terms. –Paige

Glory is one of my favorite movies. I remember having to watch it in middle school during history class. After having a historical background on the time period, I am glad that one of my favorite movies is fairly historically accurate. The interactions between the northern whites and the blacks were accurate. They did not have any respect for each other and this was depicted well in the fight scene between the Union soldier and Denzel Washington’s character. Also, when the 54th first entered the training camp the rest of the regiments jeered them as they walked in. – Emily

The attitudes of white Union soldiers toward black Union soldiers was pretty well portrayed, including the quote about preferring hogs. The central tension of hoping to prove themselves in combat but not knowing if they would get the chance was correct as well. ~ Laura-Michal

'Well, first, the movie was only 2 hours. That was great.' I thought the film did pretty well to capture the ambivalence of many people (black and white) in the north. When movies portray emancipation, it's rare to see anything but hope and joy. Private Trip (Denzel Washington) offers a pretty cynical perspective that pokes holes in the blind faith of the others. I also thought the way the film stripped away Col. Shaw's naivete was pretty effective. When Shaw first sees the soldiers' raw and blistered feet, it finally dawns on him how unprepared they are. When he sees Trip's scars, he's genuinely surprised and shocked. The film never addresses this, but just about every man in the unit would have had similar scars. '''Shaw comes from an abolitionist background, but clearly does not know much about actual slavery. How many other abolitionists were this sheltered?'''--Stef L.

The different attitudes displayed by both the white and black soldiers and commanders (I don't really know army positions too well) were really good. You had Thomas and Denzel and the other guy who was really good at shooting the rifle and excited to get his blue uniform; they are all strong characters with different personalities and views on the 54th regiment. Similarly, then there is the white characters. Shaw and the other commanders are very different. But that is probably how things really were. There were black soldiers who would have taken the $10 pay instead of $13, and others who would protest and find that to be unfair. --Aqsa Z.

War's Impact on solders

Glory seemed to be a Disney film that was dressed up in "big boy pants." While it's characters were scarcely believable, the one glaring omission was the war scenes not showing us... war. Sure, cannon balls were throwing people in the air like rag dolls, but oddly enough no fingers were blown off or heads. I am not saying I have this blood thirst, but some historical accuracy would be nice. '''Here is what they got right. The PTSD soldiers were facing during the time. Ferris was clearly shaken with war and that became glaringly clear when he had the punch bowl ladle in his hand and the window was slammed.''' The music: over-the-top and rather annoying. -JRemey

While I can’t decide if they got it quite right, kudos to them for trying to capture the essence of PTSD in Robert after his experiences at Antietam. This movie also does a good job at framing a unique stressor that was present in the Civil War and the Revolutionary War that our soldiers have not had to deal with during any modern conflicts. Since we consistently engage in conflicts outside of the contiguous United States, our military personnel don’t have to interact with their families and deal with routine pressures of society on a daily basis. As a retired Marine, I cannot imagine how soldiers managed to balance these interactions during these conflicts while still maintaining focused on their military responsibilities. - Sara G.

Historical versus fictional characters

I am not very picky with fictional characters being thrown into movies anymore. I think including the Douglass brothers would have taken away from the story rather than enhanced it. If they were to include the brothers, the writers would have had to add background, family issues, reasons for joining, etc. because their father was (and still is) such a prominent figure.''' The story the writers presented was not about individual men (besides Shaw, of course). They made this clear by having only one “real” major character. The movie is about the hundreds of men who joined the Union army to fight for freedom (or revenge). They use the characters to portray the diverse reasons for joining, varying backgrounds, etc.''' Morgan Freeman is the honest, wise ex-slave who… well he doesn’t really do much besides be Morgan Freeman; Denzel Washington is the vindictive, bitter man with a past…wait which movie of his am I talking about again?... who changes his views by the end of the movie; Andrew Braugher (Thomas) is the educated, northern free man who wants to prove himself; and Jihmi Kennedy (Jupiter Sharts) is from the deep south and was never exposed to anything outside of his slave-life but is eager to learn. For me, that tent of characters was representative of the entire regiment and the major perspectives. And I think that you could view Shaw's shock at the scars in a different perspective. He could have simply thought of the men as men and not as ex-slaves, if that makes sense. He saw them as his troops and didn't think to think about where each of them had come from--he just knew that they were willing and able to fight.-- Brooke

The diversity amongst the 54th helped to portray this group on a deeper level. Previous films lump blacks, during this time, into a one size fits all. Glory's inclusion of characters that juxtaposed one another removes them from this idea that they are property, a feat not yet accomplished by any films we have seen so far. These men are remembered for the bravery and the film doesn't let you forget that they are black yet it is still overshadowed by their military service. -Rachel T.

The movie also did a nice job of creating an environment which highlighted the fact that all African Americans were not the same. In Glory, African American soldiers came from different parts of the United States, had different accents, different backgrounds, and different attitudes towards the war. '''In the end, these men became bonded by their shared experiences. This is a very important part of the Civil War story that men began to feel a connection between one another even with enemy soldiers. This war gave white Americans an opportunity to see African Americans as more than a body for work.''' Rather, they began to see African Americans as people with convictions, emotions, and beliefs. - Jason Milton

The film portrays the relationship between Union soldiers and the black Union soldiers pretty well, and the conflict that happens between and within these groups. The Union soldiers did look down upon the blacks, which is shown really well with the Irish officer treating them poorly in training. The film also showed conflict between Union soldiers over the idea of race between those supporting blacks and those who didn't. -Amanda

Shaw struggled with how to behave towards his black soldiers. He tried to treat them as regular enlisted men, not making excuses for them being ex slaves. Shaw must have undergone a personal change through his command and realized that there was more to fight for than just preserving the Union. Many whites held no respect for black soldiers, calling them "pigs." '''White officers showed no respect for Shaw, calling him a "twit." Anyone who had any connection with black regiments was seen has a fool or insignificant.''' Black soldiers were payed less than whites and the former slaves working for the Union army were addressed as "contraband." I liked that the movie portrayed the colored regiment from Tennessee as animals because that was how whites viewed them. Shaw's men saw themselves as different which makes for a more captivating story. Also, '''black troops were used for manual labor but did receive more training than white enlisted soldiers. They also did not receive the same treatment of clothing and food.''' - Hannah

Military Aspects

The scene where a white Union regiment passes by the 54th Mass. regiment and an argument breaks out (initiated by Denzel...of course) is realistic. It showed the animosity that some Union soldiers felt towards black soldiers. Also, I appreciated that they did not sugarcoat the facts about the failed attempt to take Fort Wagner and depicted correctly the death of Shaw, the high number of casualties, and the inability for the 54th to take the fort. --Ellen S.

I thought that the morale throughout most of the movie was well portrayed. After when Colonel Shaw got the shoes for his men, I thought that the morale was obvious, among the men and the officers and stayed throughout the rest of the movie. ~Kayle P.

'''The battle scenes in Glory did a good job of conveying the fact that weapon technology had outgrown traditional military tactics. These men were often marching into battles where the casualty rate was over or near 50 percent.''' -- Jason Milton

T'''hey do a great job near the end pointing out how absurd the 54th leading the assault was. It amounts to Shaw saying “No, General, we haven't eaten or slept for days, and you just said the leading troops will all die, but we have character!”''' -- Sam R.

Historical Chronology and Events

The film appeared to follow the basic timeline of events that occurred. The part that I appreciated the most was the fact that there were those characters that were racist. As discussed not everyone was P.C. and the movie was good at depicting that. pmccloy

The scene that shows Shaw and his men ripping up their pay vouchers after learning that the soldiers would not be receiving equal pay as white soldiers was accurate. Even though the scene was brief it depicted a factual issue that was prevalent within the 54th regiment. --Mary O.

During the lovely amputation sequence the film makes it clear that Lincoln didn't free all the slaves at once with the emancipation. In terms of resisting common historical tropes, this is a point in the film's favor. -- Sam R.

'''The film refers to the Gen. Benjamin Butler action which called slaves “contraband”. That order was given in May 1861. This fits very well within the timeline since the Antietam battle happened in early 1862''', depending on how fast news traveled. -- Sam R.

I agree with Sam, majority if the terms and events we learned on Tuesday were demonstrated throughout the film. Also, I agree with a comment written further down. This depiction of war was absolutely more realistic than that of GWTW or any other movie we've seen. The little details and scenes, such as the nursing scene in the beginning. There were all men there working and taking care of one another and also, the screams and the pains of the amputation was more realistic than the other movies portraying a softer and less gruesome view of the nursing areas. --Aqsa Z.

General sense of historical accuracy

'''If there is one thing which I have mentioned in the past that holds true for this movie its the fact that they set the tone right off the bat. Ignoring the period correct dress for the soldiers, the gratuitous field hospital scene, etc. this movie just feels right compared to others. Hollywood cannot get every historical detail into a movie, nor would they be profitable when they do so. But the spirit of this movie feels like it is appropriate.''' --NJenn

Other items

This film does a good job with the geography. Savannah and the Golden Isles are very representative of Charleston and the South Carolina low country. Apparently, Savannah makes a good stand-in for New England as well! I think it’s odd that many of the Boston scenes were filmed in Savannah. - Sara G.

Military protocol, customs, and courtesies were well represented in this film. Like in The Patriot, this film accurately represents the brutality of war without a romanticized filter, the unique horrors of 19th-century battle, and that blend of chaos, adrenaline and confusion that creates “the fog of war.” - Sara G.

'''I couldn’t imagine that a regimental commander would be buried in a mass grave, but I looked it up, and sure enough, he was. His family made the conscious choice to leave him there as well.''' - Sara G.

Things the movie got wrong
Historical versus Fictional Characters

'''Where were the Douglass brothers? As far as I could tell, they never appeared in the movie.''' The only black soldier that got a promotion was Morgan Freeman and I’m pretty sure that is just because he is Morgan Freeman. ~Kayle P

'''I could very well be wrong, but when the soldiers told their stories, many seemed to say they were runaways. It almost felt like they were implying that most were, but in actuality were most freedmen?''' pmccloy

'''The payment scene was a poor choice. The writers tried so hard to make Shaw a dynamic character.''' Main characters must change and develop, so the writers cannot use the true story and have Shaw encourage his men to refuse pay until it matched white troops’ pay. Even though that’s way more badass, the writers probably wanted to show that Shaw wanted to be like his soldiers, like “Oh… I get full pay though... But hey, see! I’ll tear up mine, too! This way you know that I’m on your side.” Lame. -- Brooke

Casting Issues

They cast Matthew Broderick as one of the main characters. I think he is a terrible actor who does not show enough emotion to make Col. Robert Gould Shaw a convincing character who actually believes in what he is doing. —Paige

Also, '''Wesley and Ferris Bueller? How are we supposed to take them seriously? I know I couldn't.''' But I think that stressed the focus of the movie being the black Union regiment, especially since they threw in Freeman and Washington. -Kendall

'''Why wasn't Morgan Freeman cast as Frederick Douglass? When Denzel was talking to Inspector Gadget about the war he said that blacks won't win the war even if the Union does, that he won't get anything. I was wondering if someone like him would understand that blacks wouldn't receive anything special after the war.''' - Hannah

Chronology

'''In the scene with the Battle of Antietam, one of the officers refers to the African American soldiers as contraband. However, by this time, the 2nd Confiscation Act would have already been in place, so why that term still if slaves could be freed?''' ~Kayle P

I was confused about a couple of chronological elements in the beginning. At Antietam, the hospital steward says that Lincoln was waiting for a big victory, which he guessed Antietam was, to pass the Emancipation Proclamation, but would he have actually known about Lincoln's plan and made that connection? They also have the 54th forming up sometime I would guess around late October, when I think that didn't happen until January. --Carrie

Military matters

'''I also found it very ironic that when they caught a deserter they tied him to a wheel and whipped him. During the civil war, deserters would not have been whipped.''' They either would have been court-martialed or put in prison or they would have been shot. —Paige

During the attack on Fort Wagner Shaw was not the person who asked who would carry the colors but rather the person who said that he would carry them if the other man fell. Shaw also made it to the top of the fortress and then when he was shot he fell inside of it. – Emily

Compared to the Patriot and Amistad, Glory's fight scenes seemed unrealistic. There wasn't enough blood and gore and body parts flying off. Also, when the artillery shells hit there were definite delayed reactions and guys just rolling over. I didn't find them believable. -Kendall

'''One of the most glaring mistakes that I noticed while watching the movie was the inconsistency with the supplies the 54th received. Apparently, it was out of the question to provide these men with shoes or socks but totally acceptable to provide them with the newest rifles.''' Something that I noticed about this movie in comparison with some of the other movies we have watched was the physics of the African Americans. If the movie is portraying slavery generally the African American males are shirtless and usually muscle bound. In this movie most of the African Americans are average sized and tend to keep their shirts on. This seems to be a trend with Hollywood movies that all male slaves performed manual labor in the fields and were toned and ripped. 'Another question I had after watching the movie was how involved was Frederick Douglas in creating the 54th? The movie made it seem like he was a key figure in the formation of the 54th.' - Jason Milton

'''When the men of the 54th regiment were given their guns they were all given rifles instead of muskets. Although rifles were used in the war they were not common, muskets were the most common gun used.''' It would have been highly unlikely for an entire regiment to be armed with rifles, especially an all black regiment. --Mary O.

Race Relations and stereotyping

'''Maybe I am just being rather biased here (or a bad history student) but I thought we had gotten away from the happy Negro singing and dancing thing all the time. Sure, blacks did enjoy the good ol' spirituals that we still enjoy in the good ol baptist church today and sure it's apart of the culture and has been recorded in numerous first hand accounts that blacks did enjoy their bonding time. BUT EVERY TIME I WATCH A FILM THAT THAT THEY'RE ALWAYS DANCING AND SINGING AND CLOWNING AROUND. SERIOUSLY?? I mean, really? Is it possible to always be singing like the seven dwarfs for every bloody moment of the day. I don't think so. The idea of the happy negro that was better moral than white troops seems to be a pipe dream, a fantasy concocted to make people feel better about the depressing conditions in which blacks suffered. They were whipped, spat on, treated sub human, BUT AT LEAST THEY WERE HAPPY! :D yeah. right.''' Also, this was awfully modern speaking for characters that would have been dead before the turn of the 20th Century...--JRemey

Other issues

'''There was a discrepancy in the beginning of the movie. When Shaw dropped behind a dead body and was awoken by John Rawlins (M. Freeman) Rawlins addressed him as "captain". This, in fact, was Shaw's military rank in the beginning of the movie. I don't think that knowledge of insignia would have been known by a former slave, so I'm confused how he knew to address Shaw by that title. Especially before joining the military.''' --NJenn

'''The film was misleading at times regarding the idea of whether the troops "would fight". The film primarily portrays the issue as the army not wanting the black regiment to fight because they army simply thought it would "be funny". So, when the Harper Times reporter asked "will they fight?" it appears he was asking whether they will be allowed to. However, one of the main historical reasons they didn't fight was that many doubted whether the blacks could be trusted with weapons and whether they were manly enough to even fight. Also at stake was their patriotism. So, when the reporter asked whether they "would fight," he was merely repeating the sentiment of many even in the South that the blacks weren't capable of fighting.''' -- Sam R.

'''The accents. Again with the accents. When an actor’s accent is as distracting as Matthew Broderick’s was in this movie, the directors would do well to just call it off and have the actor use his regular conversational voice.''' I do feel in many cases, they did a good job representing the linguistic patterns and idiosyncrasies of the blacks. - Sara G.

The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it
With the making of Glory, we see a change in the way that that the Civil War is portrayed in public memory. Ever since film was created, most movies about the Civil War were made from the perspectives of whites, excluding African American involvement and stereotyping African Americans during the war. Glory was one of the first movies in which USCTs are actively involved making the public realize that African American’s took part in the war and the struggles they faced in order to do so. –Paige

Watching Glory the week after Gone with the Wind brought attention to the radical difference in, like Paige mentioned, how the Civil War is remembered. 'The raw and real depictions of the soldiers in their camp and the battle scenes reveal the unromanticized look at the war (so very different from Selznick's portrayal in GWTW''). Glory depicts the war in a less idealistic way''' (no Great Depression...no living survivors, etc.). --Ellen S.

'''"Glory" is to the 1980s, as "Red Tails" was to the 2010s. It tells another side to a story that people think they know about.''' Let's be real, we love movies like "The Patriot" because we can feel better about our Moral and Just causes. Glory shows a side (just a glimpse) of what Blacks went through during the era, even if it is laced with cheesy music and awkward mustaches. -JRemey

Glory seems like it was made at a time when people wanted to see more of the realities of war, not necessarily with the gory blood and guts (except for the head being blown off). Audiences wanted to see the real part of history; black struggled to earn their chance to fight against the institution of slavery and the southern men who support it. Glory showed a good job of the racial relations in the eyes of 1989. - Hannah

This movie is the beginning of a string of breakout roles for Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman that launched them into the face of pop culture. The 1980s were the era when black actors became mainstream after the 1970s Blaxploitation movies. I'd say this movie is a part of that movement of black actors to becoming lead roles but still not quite there. The director Edward Zwick has also directed The Last Samurai and Blood Diamond, two other movies where the main character is white but the story is primary about an ethnic group. Incidentally, Ken Burn's The Civil War came out the next year with Freeman playing Frederick Douglass. Maybe Civil War scholarship was trending in the late 80s. - Zhen Chen

Comments on the reading versus the movie
In James Henry Gooding's letter to President Lincoln, he argues that the African American soldiers should be paid the same amount as white soldiers, 13 dollars a month rather than 10 dollars. The movie does a good job of showing blacks' desire to receive higher pay, but in the film it happens much earlier. In this letter, Gooding mentions how the soldiers proved themselves at James Island and Fort Wagner, where in the film it appears that once Shaw sides with them, they get the pay soon after. In a letter to the editors of New Bedford Mercury, Gooding also expresses the desire to fight on the front lines which the film definitely showed well. -Amanda

In Gooding's June 8th letter he describes the events in Beufort, South Carolina. He mentions the burning of 34 mansions of notorious rebels, raiding and burning everything they came in contact with. The movie portrayed Col. Montgomery and his troops burning down rebel homes without any sense of it being wrong, but threw in Shaw and his troops and their higher sense or morality which is not mentioned in Gooding's letters. Gooding doesn't seem to have a problem with Montgomer's methods and also does not mention Shaw having any issue with them either. - Kendall

In the Susie King Taylor reading, she talks about a Captain Heasley encouraging black troops to reject their paychecks in protest, so that they might receive full pay, similar to Shaw (/Denzel Washington). How common was it for officers to identify with their men and support them in protest?--Stef L.

After reading the article by George W. Hatton, we didn’t see slave-owners coming to Union camps to find their runaway slaves (probably for good reason, since that complicates things…but still). He also mentions capturing African American freedwomen. Though Hatton was in a different regiment, it makes me wonder why we did not see more African Americans besides the two regiments. None come seeking refuge, and I believe there was only one woman during the Montgomery scene. -- Brooke

The readings reflect the relatively high degree of accuracy of the film. They did receive Enfield Rifles. Other black units did wear red pants (and coats). And they did have a parade. This are all minor things but nice to see. What they did get incorrect, I feel it understandable from a storytelling perspective. They didn't get into the fort but its a lot more dramatic if they did. Most of the 54th were well educated blacks but its understandable why they wanted a spectrum of different soldiers for contrast. One issue however is that we never see any black women in the film. The Taylor and PBS reading clearly show their were women in these camps. Lastly the readings diminish the uniqueness of the 54th. Taylor's stories of other black units are similar to the ones told about the 54th. - Zhen Chen