MovieChat Forums > Gettysburg (1993) Discussion > Sheen or Duvall; who played Lee better?

Sheen or Duvall; who played Lee better?


I honestly can't decide. Duvall had far less screen time and was given less to say, but portrayed the quiet dignity and stoicism I've always associated with Lee. His voice and manner of speaking sounded how I always imagined Lee sounding. Not to mention he absolutely nailed the look (something that can be said of almost anyone cast in both movies, particularly Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain in "Gettysburg" and Stephen Lang a Stonewall Jackson in "Gods and Generals"). Sheen, on the other hand, played him as more animated, more intense, and somehow more human. I feel like they drew from different parts of his personality in their portrayals; Sheen displayed Lee's notorious temper and intensity, Duvall, his distant nature and dignity. In terms of entertainment value, I've gotta give it to Martin Sheen, especially since he really brought my interpretation of Lee from Shaara's works to life accurately, but for historical accuracy I'd pick Robert Duvall. Between the resemblance, the flawless accent, his obvious comfort on horseback, and the simple fact that most of Duvall's lines were historically accurate, for sheer "going-back-in-time-and-seeing-the-man-himself-ness", it's Duvall all day long.
I really liked both of their performances, I'd like to know what the general consensus is.

reply

This is just a personal opinion, based of course on my personal biases and perceptions, but I thought Sheen was dreadful. I'd always had a very specific idea in my head of how Lee carried himself and Sheen didn't come close. Duvall was better... not perfect by any means, but much better, and, at least he had the right accent.

reply

I personally felt in Gettysburg almost all of the Confederate leadership was portrayed as a bunch of men with a few screws loose, Lee included. With the exception of Longstreet.

I think Sheen had his moments, but overall his portrayal was off. Duvall by a good margin.

reply

I can't tell if the two truly dislike each other or if it is merely a friendly extension of their real-life political differences, but Duvall never hesitates to point out how much better he was as Lee than Sheen and he isn't particularly nice about it.

reply

I am in the minority but I think Sheen's Lee was way better. I liked the way he sounded more. Robert Duvall's Lee didn't sound right to me compared to Sheen's. But that's just me.

Green Goblin is great! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1L4ZuaVvaw

reply

When it comes to the question of who played a better Robert E. Lee between Martin Sheen in "Gettysburg" and Robert Duvall in "Gods and Generals", I would have to pick Sheen by default. While I concede that Duvall looks more like Lee, his portrayal lacks the character development of Sheen's performance. Unfortunately, Duvall's performance as Lee in "Gods and Generals" ends up suffering as the result of Writer/Director Ron Maxwell's unwise decision to devote so much screen time to Stonewall Jackson. In addition, I feel that by the time Duvall got his chance to play Lee on film he was too old for the part.

reply

Sheen was best. He shows the energy and fire of the man, his grace and humanity, while simultaneously portraying Lee's bone-weariness. Most excellent performance.

reply

Sheen's accent and inflection sounded more of the Southern gentry...all the accents in Gettysburg and a few other well directed movies exist to this day. We can only discern how a particular person spoke/sound/accents by his or her geographical origins.

I'm not a linguistic authority, so may just be pissing in the wind...



reply

Sheen.

Every time I've ever read 'The Killer Angels', 'Gods and Generals' and 'The Last Full Measure' it is with Sheen as Lee. I love Robert Duvall as an actor, but I could not stand his portrayal of Lee in 'Gods and Generals', probably because it was so different than Sheen in 'Gettysburg', which isn't his fault. I know TPTB wanted Duvall to play Lee in Gettysburg, but Sheen owned that role and too bad he was doing the West Wing at the time of 'GandG'.

reply

Sheen by a mile for me. Duvall is a great actor but was too old and frankly he didn't really get much to do anyway except recite speeches. Sheen showed energy, intelligence, passion, toughness and the kindness of lee. Of course he had more of a chance to do so. Duvall also being Virginian and from what I've heard somewhat related to lee, didn't have the objectivity sheen did

reply

I like Sheen better, but I think that's because Lee is just a much better developed character in Gettysburg vs G&G. I like both actors, but I've really admired Sheen since the first time I saw him in the m4tv movie "The Execution of Private Slovik" sometime back in the '70s, so I'm a bit prejudiced.

Really the choice is prime rib vs lobster; they're both great but I like prime rib just a little better.

reply

Duvall, but he should have been about ten years younger.

reply

While Sheen is a fine actor, I felt that Duvall's Lee was a bit closer to the mark, all things considered.

It is thought by some CW historians that Lee didn't possess such a twangy Southern accent as the one Sheen gave him. These folks posit that Lee's accent may have been more of a neutral, aristocratic baritone and that he may have actually sounded more like a New Englander than a Southerner, or at the least his accent may have had only the slightest trace of Southern lilt in it. But of course, Lee was a native Virginian so it's entirely possible that Sheen's accent was the more accurate. We will never know for certain at this remove.

I also felt that Sheen's Lee lacked the proper bearing and quality of austerity that Lee was said to have possessed. Duvall's Lee had the more commanding presence and put across the proper sense of great dignity. Then there are the physical aspects - apart from having a greater natural resemblance to Lee, Duvall is a tad taller than Sheen. Lee was a tall man, around six feet. Sheen was simply too short - everybody else in the film was taller than him (the first time I watched Gettysburg I had to keep reminding myself of who Sheen was portraying). Duvall is no six-footer either, but he somehow seemed bigger in G&G. Maybe it's a head-to-body-size ratio thing, or just the camera angles used.

Having said all that, I still think Sheen's performance was terrific. There's not a lot in it, but for me Duvall just nudges out Sheen as an authentic Lee.

reply

Duvall, by a mile. I thought Sheen was horribly miscast--he looked nothing like Lee in photographs, whereas Duvall did (obviously a family resemblance). And Sheen's Lee came across as having dementia; a strange way to portray someone who up to that point had been a brilliant strategist. (Lee's failures at Gettysburg may have been due to illness; perhaps that was what Sheen was trying to portray...either way, it comes across as odd). Duvall really conveyed the quiet dignity of Lee.
But, as others have pointed out, Duvall had less to do in Gods and Generals; not his fault he was reduced to a supporting character. I really wish Duvall had played Lee in Gettysburg--I think he was much better in the role than Sheen.

reply

He failed at Gettysburg because Jackson wasn't there.

reply

He failed at Gettysburg because Jackson wasn't there.

Jackson's loss no doubt hurt him, but that wasn't the only reason.

reply

I've read that Lee rode very erect, like ramrod straight on his horse. He's also described as having (relatively) short legs and a long trunk so he looked taller in the saddle than when standing. Sheen always seemed a bit hunched over, in his shoulders especially; perhaps that's because he's stockier than Duvall.

reply

Riding erect could be a bit painful, I should think.

reply