It would be impossible to find a more authentic looking and compelling Civil War movie, and it indeed is a fine tribute to Colonel Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts men. However, I can help but be annoyed by simplification and inaccuracy of Hollywood History. So for those who'd like an understanding of reality for the events depicted, I'll give the most important, so read on. Skip this comment if you think a movie should be entertaining and nothing else.
Strongly misrepresented at least initially is the most central of characters, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The filmmakers would have him be a saint, but in reality he was a complex individual. He initially refused the Colonelcy of the what was to be the 54th, before his sense of duty and honor took over. He even called himself a "Ni--er Colonel". Despite his parents being abolishionist, he had never known any blacks growing up. His ignorance should come as no surprise, and it must also be remembered that the n-word was not considered nearly as vulgar as today. As the men were trained, Shaw began to develop an affection for his men, and was quite like the character he was portrayed as at the end of the film. This is the important thing- He overcame his prejudices. The filmmakers obviously decided that the audience would get the wrong impression of Shaw if they let him know he wasn't an egalitarian from the outset. Too, they fabricated the letters read by Shaw in the movie. Shaw wrote many letters, which are a valuable insight into the war, but they are usually not philosophying or proclaiming the perfection of blacks. Like most soldiers writing home, Shaw wrote about daily life, not writing for elegengant entertainment. Also, in the film there is no mention or sight of Shaw's wife, whom he engaged shortly after accepting the Colonelcy and married shortly before moving out to South Carolina. I guess that would distract everybody from Perfect Shaw.
I'm curious of why all the 54th men besides Shaw were made composite characters rather than out of reality. There are several accounts by surviving officers and men, on which I'd imagine they could have created characters. Although Forbes is my favorite character of the film, I don't know why Ewles's character is not Lt. Colonel Edward Hallowell, who had a similar (for the movie's purpose) relationship with Shaw and looks just like him too! And a note-The 54th men aren't all perfect either-Shaw notes before leaving camp that they have had 20-30 dessertions. The film seems to imply that there were none except for those looking for shoes. I don't think less of the black fighting men because a small portion of their number were not worthy enough.
Colonel Montgomery was a very interesting man, and the flat portayal of him in the movie is not accurate. He was one of John Brown's close followers in Kansas, and while I can't be sure if he was the racist as depicted in the film, he was undoubtbly a fervent abolishionist. A true detail was his tendancy to shoot at any man who disobeyed an order.
The movie's depiction of the buring of Darien is relatively accurate. There is not a note of looting taking place as in the film, although Shaw really was shocked and greatly disapproved of the destruction of property in a town without rebels. He wasn't threatened with court martial if he refused to participate, and did not revile Montgomery either. Indeed, Shaw was awestruck by the Colonel-He admired his dedication to orders and abolition, although he was uneasy that Montgomery could be so brutal at times. Montgomery's superior in the film is named Harker-Really this is General Hunter, mentioned at the beginning of the film. Contrary again to reality, Shaw blackmails Montgomery and "Harker" into getting a combat transfer. Hunter had really already been relieved, and Shaw wrote General Strong, who he greatly admired, for permission, which was granted.
The film assault on Fort Wagner is actually very authentic, moreso than a previous comment gave in the IMD gave credit for. The size of Wagner is not exaggerated much, and Shaw did indeed ask Strong to participate. The only thing that's wrong is rather surprising-All accounts agree that Shaw was hit in the fort, not at the base of the wall as in the movie-Shouldn't saintly Shaw lead his men that far?
Now don't get me wrong, even with all these errors, I still think it's a splendid bit of work by all the actors and film staff. Still, I'd like to see Hollywood not vilify the complex or simplfy the great. Great music, cinematography, excellent battle scenes, and a perfectly executed ending, without a doubt the best done ending of a war movie possible. Enjoy the film and then go see the impressive Shaw Memorial in Boston Commons, The West Building National Gallery of Art, NY, or NH where castings are displayed!
Strongly misrepresented at least initially is the most central of characters, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw. The filmmakers would have him be a saint, but in reality he was a complex individual. He initially refused the Colonelcy of the what was to be the 54th, before his sense of duty and honor took over. He even called himself a "Ni--er Colonel". Despite his parents being abolishionist, he had never known any blacks growing up. His ignorance should come as no surprise, and it must also be remembered that the n-word was not considered nearly as vulgar as today. As the men were trained, Shaw began to develop an affection for his men, and was quite like the character he was portrayed as at the end of the film. This is the important thing- He overcame his prejudices. The filmmakers obviously decided that the audience would get the wrong impression of Shaw if they let him know he wasn't an egalitarian from the outset. Too, they fabricated the letters read by Shaw in the movie. Shaw wrote many letters, which are a valuable insight into the war, but they are usually not philosophying or proclaiming the perfection of blacks. Like most soldiers writing home, Shaw wrote about daily life, not writing for elegengant entertainment. Also, in the film there is no mention or sight of Shaw's wife, whom he engaged shortly after accepting the Colonelcy and married shortly before moving out to South Carolina. I guess that would distract everybody from Perfect Shaw.
I'm curious of why all the 54th men besides Shaw were made composite characters rather than out of reality. There are several accounts by surviving officers and men, on which I'd imagine they could have created characters. Although Forbes is my favorite character of the film, I don't know why Ewles's character is not Lt. Colonel Edward Hallowell, who had a similar (for the movie's purpose) relationship with Shaw and looks just like him too! And a note-The 54th men aren't all perfect either-Shaw notes before leaving camp that they have had 20-30 dessertions. The film seems to imply that there were none except for those looking for shoes. I don't think less of the black fighting men because a small portion of their number were not worthy enough.
Colonel Montgomery was a very interesting man, and the flat portayal of him in the movie is not accurate. He was one of John Brown's close followers in Kansas, and while I can't be sure if he was the racist as depicted in the film, he was undoubtbly a fervent abolishionist. A true detail was his tendancy to shoot at any man who disobeyed an order.
The movie's depiction of the buring of Darien is relatively accurate. There is not a note of looting taking place as in the film, although Shaw really was shocked and greatly disapproved of the destruction of property in a town without rebels. He wasn't threatened with court martial if he refused to participate, and did not revile Montgomery either. Indeed, Shaw was awestruck by the Colonel-He admired his dedication to orders and abolition, although he was uneasy that Montgomery could be so brutal at times. Montgomery's superior in the film is named Harker-Really this is General Hunter, mentioned at the beginning of the film. Contrary again to reality, Shaw blackmails Montgomery and "Harker" into getting a combat transfer. Hunter had really already been relieved, and Shaw wrote General Strong, who he greatly admired, for permission, which was granted.
The film assault on Fort Wagner is actually very authentic, moreso than a previous comment gave in the IMD gave credit for. The size of Wagner is not exaggerated much, and Shaw did indeed ask Strong to participate. The only thing that's wrong is rather surprising-All accounts agree that Shaw was hit in the fort, not at the base of the wall as in the movie-Shouldn't saintly Shaw lead his men that far?
Now don't get me wrong, even with all these errors, I still think it's a splendid bit of work by all the actors and film staff. Still, I'd like to see Hollywood not vilify the complex or simplfy the great. Great music, cinematography, excellent battle scenes, and a perfectly executed ending, without a doubt the best done ending of a war movie possible. Enjoy the film and then go see the impressive Shaw Memorial in Boston Commons, The West Building National Gallery of Art, NY, or NH where castings are displayed!