questions answered?

Rating: 8/10 (29 March 2006)

OK, I'm British, let's get that out of the way. The American Civil War has fascinated me for many years for many different reasons - almost everything about it was/is unique or unparallelled in the history of warfare and it's sheer significance on a bewildering number of levels is staggering - but the one most important question that I am still trying to come to terms with is this; what was it that drove men, from both sides, to advance toward near-certain death - time after time - against fellow countrymen on such a vast scale? I have watched this movie only recently (amazingly enough) and I want to pick up on an element that most IMDb reviewers have dismissed or generally commented as being a negative aspect. There are many scenes of protracted dialogue between the fight-scenes that attempt to put the war, the motives, the higher principles, the morality etc from all sides into perspective and I was very thankful for that. I can understand that for some it may have detracted from their overall enjoyment of the movie by giving it uneven pacing and contributing significantly to the running time of over 4 hours, but not for me. Just like for the many thousands of men who fought in this war, the interludes between fighting must have been a time of reflection and reaffirmation of their cause and their own personal motives in the light of the horrors that they had just endured. I saw this as an element of the movie every bit as realistic as the battles themselves and so it enhanced my enjoyment overall.
Overall, as a movie?. I am no expert in "movie engineering" such as the cinematography, editing and so on, I can only comment on the end product whose only objective (surely) is to entertain. I can say that I was entertained to such an extent that I was drawn right in. I was there. Sheen, Beringer, Daniels etc. were not actors, but the actual people they were portraying and I was right there with them, a little like the British observer from the Coldstream Guards. Which brings me to the only reason why I could not give the movie 10 out of 10. Whose idea of a typical British officer was that? It was embarrassing (drinking tea from a china cup in the middle of the Confererate lines - perleeeaase!) to such an extent that I squirmed every time he had a line to say (I was reminded of good old Dick Van Dyke as a British chimney sweep - a travesty of a caricature). And I did notice that he was the only one to flinch when artillery exploded nearby, whilst all else appeared not to notice and remained erect, statuesque and gazing into the opposite horizon. I can only guess at the reason for this and it is unworthy of the nobility of the events being portrayed.
Did the movie answer my question? I would say yes, in part. But I came to the conclusion that no matter how much I learn about this incredible event in world history, a full understanding will always remain tantalisingly out of my grasp. Because, simply, I am not a product of its happening.