It's not just about the battle of Gettysburg or the Civil War. That's the setting, but the real story in the book and in this film is about being trapped. The men involved are all trapped in a war they don't want, in a battle they don't want, in personal situations they don't want. It's about how they handle being trapped.
Longstreet is trapped following orders to take on a battle he believes is going to be a disaster, and he is also trapped in the grief of losing his children. Chamberlain is trapped in defending against a charge when he can't possibly retreat from it, and he is trapped in having to use his brother like any other cannon fodder body (a big point in the book, not so much the film). Lee is trapped in his own overconfidence and failing health (his health, again, a big deal in the book but not so much the film). Armistead is trapped into leading a charge against his best friend when he has made a vow to God that he should be struck dead if he does so (and that vow is genuine - Armistead knows he will die in the charge but has to make it anyway).
It's a really good film on both the historical level and the character level. Very underrated because so many people get caught up in the politics of the history and ignore the character story going on.
That's very good insight to this film and I thank you for bringing it up. I have never read the book but I have been watching this movie for about twenty years. I just watched the directors cut for maybe the third time, I am glad I saw it because the theatrical version never mentions Longstreet's children dying of scarlet fever. I also have always liked how this film tells both sides of the story. Most of the old John Wayne type Civil War movies never show any character development on the Confederate side.
I've always seen it as being about motivations.... about how all those various people all ended up in Gettysburg in July 1863 and why they did what they did once there.
Lee was as American as they came in 1860: Son of a revolutionary war hero, army officer and war hero himself (in Mexico) and married to a grand daughter of Martha Washington. Although he owned slaves, he had no strong feelings about the practice. However, he considered himself a Virginian before he considered himself an American and thus fought for the south. By 1863, he was a sick man, feeling his mortality and seeing himself and his army as the South's only hope. Unsure of how much longer his health would allow campaigning and unsure if his underlings could win the war without him, he took desperate chances at Gettysburg hoping to win the war in one battle.... and failed.
Joshua Chamberlain, on the other hand, was a New Englander, and he saw the war as a crusade intended to right a great wrong, and he had no qualms about dying for a cause like that. He'd also spent his life before (and after) the war in a classroom. This was his one and only chance to do something amazing... As an individual and as a representative of humanity.
The rest have their own motivations that often go well beyond the fight over slavery or freedom... states rights or federal power.... rural or industrial. Ewell had always had a strict and strong commander over him until Gettysburg and he shrunk under the pressure of decisions. Pickett was an amiable sort to whom life and even war was a bit of a lark until he had to watch his division die on the fields of Gettysburg. Buford was an old soldier who did what was best for the army that employed him, politics (personal or otherwise) be damned. Etc, etc, etc.
I like your take, too. I met Ron Maxwell once and he stressed the "trapped" take was one he was working with, but motivations are part of that, don't you think? You can get trapped in your motivations. Get the fixed idea that your motivations are the noble and "right" ones, and that can lead you into the trap.
There is a lot going on in this film and the book, below the surface of who sent what troops where and when. People who got caught up on the political story (and many wrote it off because they didn't like the stress on one side or the other - Gene Siskel comes to mind) missed the deeper things going on, the things that got Michael Schaara the Pulitzer for the book.
BTW, IMO it is these deeper things that Maxwell missed with Gods & Generals and why it was not well received. Even if you are consciously caught up in the political story of Gettysburg, subconsciously the deeper story is sinking in. G&G didn't have the deeper story, and I think that is why it did not work.
BTW, IMO it is these deeper things that Maxwell missed with Gods & Generals and why it was not well received. Even if you are consciously caught up in the political story of Gettysburg, subconsciously the deeper story is sinking in. G&G didn't have the deeper story, and I think that is why it did not work.
IMO, G&G didn't work because Jeff Shaara is a hack who inherited none of his father's writing talent and cashed in on the family name and his father's Pulitzer, while mechanically filling in his father's style template with none of his passion nor attention to historical detail.
reply share
I read "Killer Angels" back in the '80s and wasn't terribly impressed with it; I got it as a Christmas gift so I will reread it. I never read the prequel or sequel, and I haven't heard a lot of good things about them.
"G&G" didn't work for me because it was too much about Jackson, who quite frankly IMO is, outside of battle, a very uninteresting person, plus they didn't even touch on what to me is the highlight of the Jackson story, the Valley Campaign. So much happened in 1861-mid 1863 that was simply ignored to tell the story of Jackson, so much so that they should have simply called the movie "Stonewall."
I do love the battle scenes in G&G, the rest I pretty much zap through.
I think G&G was definitely an example of a writer learning his craft and not quite "there" yet. It's readable but not in a "stay up all night because you can't put it down" kind of way. His books after that were much better and much more enjoyable.