Overdone but still great

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Aubullet	Overdone but still great	Lead	[-]
Posts: 1091 (03/31/09 11:08 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Watched Gettysburg again, for the umpteenth time, but it's been well over a year since the last time. Seen it enough to know much of what's wrong with it, but it seems easier to overlook some of it's problems and focus on the many better aspects. The artillery barrage and the musket mass firings are still some of my favorite parts, while the overall feeling of the movie remains powerful in spite of it's flaws. The book "Killer Angels" is much better overall, but lacks the (how shall I put this) percussion/concussion of the movie, though perhaps not by much! Maybe I'll pull it out again around the first of July.
reddogge		#1	[-]
Posts: 4885 (03/31/09 09:28 PM) Host Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I liked it because my friend was an extra in it with a good role in Picketts charge. He was a Union soldier standing on the wall at the angle shouting "Fredericksburg, Fredericksburg". "What happened? What the HELL happened?" Jake Holman "The Sandpebbles"
eb in oregon		#2	[-]
Posts: 872 (04/01/09 11:58 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I really like "Gettysburg," my feeling is that Jeff Daniels portrayal of Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain was right on. Or at least like the man as I hope he was. While the movie was "a little much" in places, I think it will take awhile for anything to come out better. Tom Berenger's Longstreet was also excellent, just like the man I've read about. Jeffry D. Wert's book on Longstreet, "General James Longstreet" was an exceptional read. Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
Rick the Librarian		#3	[-]
Posts: 4670 (04/01/09 06:56 PM) Host Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I agree - I admit that "Gettysburg" hasn't "worn" as well as I would have liked, but still a magnificent movie, flaws and all. Jeff Daniels was great as Joshua Chamberlain. I think my opinion of Tom Berenger went up several notches when I saw "The Roughriders". Being able to do a very decent job playing James Longstreet AND Theodore Roosevelt (Note the different tone of his "voices") really impressed me!
Viclav		#4	[-]
Posts: 55 (04/16/09 04:03 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I had two major gripes about that film. Firstly, the climactic fight at the angle would have benefited greatly from some close-in fight choreography... something to convey the savagery of the moment. The generalized overhead view gave the impression of a bunch of re-enactors milling about in semi-confusion, trying hard to not hurt each other while "scuffling." They needed to capture the absolute desperation of combatants where, as one well known eyewitness reported, even the wounded underfoot were struggling with each other. Secondly, the unfortunate casting of Martin Sheen as R.E. Lee. Too short and without anything approaching Lee's reported grace, bearing or magnetism. The deer-in-the-headlights, limp wristed granny-waving and politico hand-shaking of the men before Pickett's charge was deeply distressing. Victor "Always carry a firearm east of "Aldgate, Watson."
sargeast		#5	[-]
Posts: 19 (04/19/09 12:16 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Viclav wrote: Secondly, the unfortunate casting of Martin Sheen as R.E. Lee. Too short and without anything approaching Lee's reported grace, bearing or magnetism. The deer-in-the-headlights, limp wristed granny-waving and politico hand-shaking of the men before Pickett's charge was deeply distressing. Victor Exactly. One of the worst examples of miscasting I've ever seen. But, on the other hand, Tom Berringer IS Longstreet (which makes Sheen look that much worse).
eb in oregon		#6	[-]
Posts: 878 (04/19/09 08:33 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Jeff Daniels was great as Joshua Chamberlain. When he screamed "Fix Bayonets" I almost ran to the safe to get a rifle and bayonet! From all I've read of Chamberlin, Daniels had the man nailed solid. I'm re-reading Wert's book and Longstreet wasn't perfect (who is), but he was quite a man and one of America's best Generals ever. Warts and all. I didn't like Sheen's portrayal of Lee either, what I wonder though is, who would have been better? Any ideas? Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
Aubullet		#7	[-]
Posts: 1122 (04/19/09 02:16 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	While Sheen as R.E. Lee was not enjoyable from my perspective, I don't think he made too bad of a job of it really, just not a very good one. But I still think it could have been done much better, though by whom, I'm not all that sure. Perhaps it is more the fault of script than of actor. I will say his dressing down of Stuart was well done and acceptably powerful, but too much of the time his portrail was very wishy-washy. I would like to believe that Duvall could have done better, but I have little evidence to support such a thought, based on his portrail in Gods and Generals. I do believe Duvall can be a better actor than that! Perhaps Russell Crowe could fill the bill. Though a bit on the young side, he has a very adaptible face, that looks very different for different rolls, so I think he could have been made over convincingly. I have also seen him to provide powerful performances at times, so I think he is capable of the dignity and dynamics essential to that role. Whoever may try to take on that role, I am certain that the original Robert E. Lee, is going to be a tough act to follow!
reddogge		#8	[-]
Posts: 4894 (04/21/09 02:05 PM) Host Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Viclav nailed it. Martin Sheen wasn't fit to clean Lee's boots moreless portray him. "What happened? What the HELL happened?" Jake Holman "The Sandpebbles"
sargeast		#9	[-]
Posts: 20 (04/25/09 01:26 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I was also disappointed in Duvall's protrayal in "Gods and Generals", I thought he could do better (but still shamed Sheen). My choices? Well off the top of my head (since they apparently wanted a star) I'd go out on a limb for Robert Deniro (hey, he's never been bad in ANYTHING) or (don't laugh) Sean Connery (if he could manage an American accent).
Viclav		#10	[-]
Posts: 57 (04/27/09 02:43 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	If I were casting the role for the time the film was being made, I'd give the nod to Christopher Plummer. If I were casting director looking to audition the part today, my short list would include Ciaran Hinds, Kevin Kline, D. Day-Lewis, Ian McKellen, Jeremy Irons, Patrick Stewart and possibly Viggo Mortensen. Victor "Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."
Rick the Librarian		#11	[-]
Posts: 4679 (05/05/09 08:08 PM) Host Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I'm with you, Eb -- the section of the movie on Little Round Top was one of the best scenes in war movie history IMHO, especially the "fix bayonets" charge scene.
Alibi	Gettysbug..Suh.	#12	[-]
Posts: 466 (05/06/09 03:04 AM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Martin Sheen turned down the role of Lee in Gettysburg and I suppose those of you that didn't like him in the role would agree. I don't recall his reason(s) for declining the role but I suspect he knew playing a man that so many people think they know or have a conceived idea of what Lee was like in person would have disliked Sheen's interpretation. R.E. Lee had a bad fall from his horse a few days before the meeting engagement at Gettysburg, and according to people that were there Lee was hurting and wasn't at his best. It has even been suggested that Lee may have suffered a stroke. In any case if you accept that Lee was ailing perhaps you can better appreciate Sheen's performance as historically accurate. I have to say that when I heard that Martin Sheen portrayed Lee I didn't think he could do it, but after seeing the film I changed my mind and was impressed. There are three scenes in which I think Sheen was brilliant, the best was when he admonished J.E.B. Stuart for failing in his mission to provide timely information to Lee regarding movement of the Army of the Potomac. I was frankly indifferent to Tom Berenger's portrayal of Longstreet and in fact thought he was portraying John Bell Hood when I first saw the film. When I took the Command and General Staff Course we were required the read Shaara's book "The Killer Angels" and write a paper about any of the leaders in the book except Chamberlain. I selected John Buford as the subject of my paper and was therefore interested in seeing Sam Elliott's portrayal of Buford. I was not disappointed. There is much to criticize about the film Gettysburg, not the least of which was basing the screenplay on "The Killer Angels," because the historical accuracy of Sharra's book is in dispute. Some of the dialogue was recreated or perhaps "created" based on little recorded evidence of the precise text, tone or existence of the conversations. In any case a tip of the kepi to Ted Turner for funding the film.
Viclav		#13	[-]
Posts: 58 (05/06/09 02:55 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	While it is indeed all too easy to fall for the "marble man" Douglas Southall Freeman interpretation of Lee, there must have been some spark that prompted men to say "I'd charge Hell itself for that old man." I don't recall seeing anything like that in Sheen. The scene with Stuart was perfectly fine, but did not outweigh my general impression. Given the general's physical condition at the time, it would have been interesting to see a man battling with that and the burden of the encouraging figure he must present to the troops. With Sheen I saw uncertainty in the eyes most of the time. My son wants to watch the movie, so perhaps I'll have a different perspective upon review... Victor "Always carry a firearm east of Aldgate, Watson."
Alibi		#14	[-]
Posts: 467 (05/06/09 06:33 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	While reading Viclav's comments it occured to me that part of the problem for those that hold Lee in esteem (and who would not?), is that Sheen's portrayal of Lee was based on the way Lee was described in "The Killer Angels" upon which the film is based. I recall while reading the book that the description of Lee was personally depressing and my recollection is he seemed a tired old man unfit for command. I think perhaps had the screen play been based on other source materials Martin Sheen's portrayal would have been different. However I think Sheen's portrayal based on "The Killer Angels" and subsequent screen play was quite accurate. Was Sheen's perfomance unsatisfactiery because he was not right for the role or was it because his interpretation was accurate to the screen play that isn't consistent with many people's perceptions of Lee? The real Lee was a tough act to follow, or try to portray, and after further reflection I still think Sheen did a creditable job.
Fritz1255		#15	[-]
Posts: 331 (05/18/09 09:13 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sheen portrayed Lee as being somewhat elderly and out-of-touch, particularly in the scenes where he orders Longstreet to attack the center of the Federal line. I assume this portrayal was intentional, and had more to do with how the director wanted the part played than Sheen's acting ability? Apparently plans for a third movie have been dropped due to the poor box office results for "Gods and Generals", which is unfortunate.
7GREEN		#16	[-]
Posts: 588 (05/24/09 11:58 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I recognized a lot of my fellow CW reenactors in it, had the chance to be in it myself, but work and obligations made that a pipe dream. Not so much overdone as unbalanced, you see all the brass of the Army of Northern Virginia but not of the Army of the Potomac.
eb in oregon		#17	[-]
Posts: 912 (06/10/09 07:27 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	It occurs to me that sometimes our perception of others (especially actors) revolves around not only their "work face," and "private face," but what others also say about an individual. As an actor, Martin Sheen is top notch and has been for quite some time. That is his "work face," which I admire and appreciate. His "private face," which is constantly reported through the media demonstrates to me that he and I have much different politics, as well as our interpretation of humanity and it's laws. I try to not let this difference interfere with the fact that he is an actor, portraying figures of history in different roles. As for General Lee. It is a matter of record that Lee was an exceptional leader, one of the best, if not the best ever to have served United States forces. It however is not wholly apparent exactly what kind of man he was in private. It is a matter of fact that the majority of books written about Lee in the past were written by Southern historians for who a perfect, almost god like Lee was a necessity. Lee was however not a god, nor was he perfect. None of us are. He finished West Point without ever receiving a demerit, true, he did however have a temper (kept under tight control) that when observed. frightened others. Lee did listen to his subordinates (Longstreet most of all) however he did commit his troops to battle as he saw fit. Several times with the result that too many of his soldiers died for no clear victory, nor even a moral victory. While his men may have often stated that they would "follow that man to hell" remember that this would have been for the "Lee" that Lee purposely cultivated for his soldiers. Every leader has a "war face" that is reserved for his troops. Lee, as are all men, a little different with his leaders than with his troops. For his troops his face would have been the resolute and unfailing leader. As mentioned, Lee was not at his best at Gettysburg, he was "hurting for certain" and this would have affected his judgement somewhat. After reflection I'm thinking that Sheen really didn't do to bad a job, but as are all movies, it is Hollywood and that is never exactly as it really was. You see it is never exactly as it ever was because history is never perfect and there is always "the rest of the story." Regards, Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776