MovieChat Forums > Gettysburg (1993) Discussion > The PG/PG13 violence...

The PG/PG13 violence...


I wonder if, had the violence been portrayed more accurately (and hence been given an R rating) the film would have had a greater impact on the public, and not just on Civil War buffs/historians and a few fans.
Every time I see a cannon ball "explode" and see the soldiers gently flying through the air and landing in one piece, no sign of blood or limbs missing, I cringe. Every time I see someone get shot and exaggerate their wound (again with little/no blood and often not even a puncture wound!) again I cringe.
Having said all that, I absolutely realize with certainty that film could have been the most violent film ever made, even more violent than Braveheart, even more violent than Saving Private Ryan. Yes, I get it. Maxwell very wisely decided (perhaps due to budget, perhaps due to Ted Turner) that the level of violence needed to be soft.
Still, I can't help but feel all that effort and time spent making this film was wasted. I watch this film sometimes because it is easy to forget. It just doesn't have the emotional impact that say, Glory has. I haven't seen Glory for years and years but that film is so intense that it stayed with me forever. It is also regarded as the greatest Civil War film ever made (aside from perhaps Gone With the Wind, but that is more a period piece set during the Civil War).
I don't know, it just seems the film manages to portray the battle of Gettysburg as "not all THAT bad" due to people being gently thrown through the air and landing in one piece on the grass, when every single historian knows with absolute clarity that a cannon ball (especially canister fire) would tear limbs off of people and even blow them in half.

reply

I don't think so. The big turn off for a lot of people is the four hour runtime. It's one of the reasons I didn't see it for years, and I love history.

Of course, when looking at the rating, you have to consider that this film was originally going to be a miniseries. Ted Turner decided to release it theatrically.

--
Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb.
http://tinyurl.com/obmt7tw

reply

That's just it though. It should have been a mini-series. It's like Ted Turner looking at Maxwell and saying, "What are you thinking, Ron?" to which Maxwell replies, "Maybe we should not release this theatrically?"
"I know. But we have prevailed. The crew has prevailed." "Yes sir, they have always done that. But in the theaters, people will expect theater-quality action." And so on.

reply

Remember as well that this was made five years before Saving Private Ryan, which set a new standard for depictions of combat violence. When I saw Gettysburg in the theater, when it first came out, I thought the violence was well done, but by today's standards you're right.

It was the same when Bonnie and Clyde came out. Before then -- I remember how it was -- any depiction of blood on screen was shocking.

http://redkincaid.com

reply

Unless my memory is incorrect (and that is definitely possible), this was intended purely to be shown on TBS. Ted Turner... just as he did when he bought the Atlanta Braves so many years ago... justified the cost in large part because he knew it would give him hours of programming for his cable networks that would draw viewers for years and years (which it has) without ever costing him an additional dime once he'd paid for the production. The final product was so good that he decided to release it in theaters (with an intermission between the two "parts"... and, yes, I saw it in the theaters and, yes, there WAS an intermission). In any case, since it was intended to be on TV and since Turner wanted to be kinda, sorta "family" programming, he glossed over the reality of the blood and gore a bit.

reply

In my opinion it was good that there wasn't gratuitous violence, as it lets people concentrate on the story and what is happening in the battle instead of the eye-catching gore and blood that most action films have today (which I must say I do enjoy sometimes, just that it is not always appropriate). As others have said it was originally intended for TV and therefore never could be made with R-level violence, especially in 1993. Just my two cents! ;)

P.S. Glory is very overrated and historically has far too many inaccuracies, along with it's PC depiction of the "evil" South vs. the "angelic" North. Gettysburg is easily the best Civil War film ever made.

"Courage is being scared to death- and saddling up anyway"

reply

I don't really see the angelic North, their own quartermasters undermine them, their superior is a racist, and other regiments provoke them.

reply

The lack of blood and dismemberment also made it popular with schools as a visual aide.

reply

I met Ron Maxwell once and asked him about the decision to put this out in theaters and not just a TV miniseries (which it was, in mid 1994). He said the decision was Turner's and was made about 2 weeks into shooting. So, basically, the whole production was set up and already started as a TV miniseries, hence the TV grade beards and violence. Too late to change things when Turner made the call.

Turner was looking for a vehicle to start his movie distribution company and probably, since he had so much fun playing soldier (Jane Fonda said he was sleeping in his uniform, he loved it so much - bet she didn't), he went with Gettysburg for the first film for his distribution company.

reply

mlroberts makes stuff up for fun, so don't trust his first hand stories.

--
LBJ's mistress on JFK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcXeutDmuRA


reply

Never made a thing up, friend. My experiences are just broader than yours.

reply