GLORY
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Excellent Civil War film of the first black regiment and the prejudice they faced. At times it seems a little over-idealized, but no more so than most films about World War II. Realistically photographed by Freddie Francis and well acted, particularly by Morgan Freeman. Rating: +2.
At a time when Hollywood is simply not making many films set in previous centuries, perhaps even the novelty of Edward Zwick's Civil War film GLORY might carry it. However, Zwick's film goes beyond that to being one of the best Civil War films ever made. GLORY tells the story of the U. S. Army's 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the first black regiment in the Army's history. The 54th had two enemies it had to fight. The Confederate Army was second. First they had to fight the Union Army for the privilege of being treated as soldiers. From the start, the all-black regiment--with two white officers--was an experiment programmed for failure. Command was given to Robert Gould Shaw, a 23-year-old inexperienced at command. Further, they were criminally under-provisioned, having to battle the army for such basics as uniforms, shoes, socks, and guns; one scene shows a black soldier standing guard duty with a spear. They have to fight for provisions, they have to fight to be sent to the front, and finally they have to fight to fight. Their training was by--among others--an Irish racist who apparently thought that blacks were Hindus. In spite of this, and in spite of the army cheating them out of their fair salary, they distinguished themselves sufficiently to become cannon fodder. GLORY is their story.
Or more accurately, it is the story of the white officers who led them and the story of five soldiers who shared the same tent upon enlisting. All the other blacks in the film are effectively spear-carriers (in some cases literally). Even given that Colonel Shaw was supposed to be young, Matthew Broderick seems a little too boyish for the role. He carries too much baggage from previous roles in which he always played the role of the "wise-guy kid." He is a little hard to take seriously as the committed idealist, though he does much better in Shaw's moments of self-doubt. Much better is Morgan Freeman as Rawlins. Freeman could easily have carried the film as the main character and as it is he is likely to get an Oscar nomination as Best Supporting Actor (as well as a nomination for Best Actor for DRIVING MISS DAISY).
One of the unsung stars of the film is Freddie Francis, director of photography. Francis was director of photography on such films as THE INNOCENTS, THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN, THE ELEPHANT MAN, and DUNE. Francis is superb at creating a period feel. From his visualization of the battle of Antietam, the viewer realizes that he is going for authentic feel rather than dramatic effect. His view of a Civil War surgery is somewhat harrowing, to say the least. His photography rounds out the film and makes for a very satisfying view of history. My rating is a +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com
.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews