Great history lesson illustrated by fantastic storytelling

Rating: 9/10 (9 March 2008)

"Glory" is a great movie with strong, multifaceted characters who have numerous intriguing conflicts. More importantly, "Glory" is a very important movie.
I'm a History aficionado, but I knew nothing about the story of the first all-African American regiment of Civil War soldiers  a 600-person regiment led by a handful of white officers. More movies like this should be made because they can, frankly, help make the American people smarter about history and spur them to learn more.
It's true that the individual African-American soldiers in "Glory" are fictional people in the middle of the portrayal of actual events, but the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Regiment was real. If I find out that the writers had in-depth information on actual soldiers, I'll be disappointed. In the meantime, I'll praise the history lessons imparted by the movie.
"Glory" does an excellent job portraying the different kinds of whites and blacks who lived in the Civil War era  abolitionists, anti-black Union soldiers, corrupt Union officers, educated free blacks, uneducated blacks, and blacks who were understandably angry and rebellious after years of slavery and other moral outrages.
Although the individuals portrayed are fictional, their character types can be used in a classroom to teach Civil War history. "Glory" is not exactly "JFK"  an abomination that has dishonestly taught ignorant young Americans lies about history.
"Glory," though, would be a great movie even if it wasn't a valuable history lesson. The movie is a storytelling masterpiece. It does a splendid job of introducing the main characters and focuses on just the right amount of people  four black soldiers and three white officers. All these characters are strongly developed, and the writing lures viewers into following their progress.
The strong characters set up a long list of interesting character conflicts that dominate the movie and kept me riveted. My list includes the regiment's white abolitionist commander vs. his deputy/lifelong friend, the commander vs. a white officer who harshly disciplines blacks, the commander vs. an educated black man he knew in Boston, an angry black man vs. the educated black man, and the angry black vs. the leader of the blacks portrayed by Morgan Freeman.
Each of these conflicts is bolstered by well-written dialogue that often includes dramatic and intriguing confrontations.
There are also at least three supporting characters in the Union Army that the lead character, Col. Robert Gould Shaw (played by Matthew Broderick), has conflicts with as he fights for the rights of his African-American troops to have adequate equipment and fight the Confederates.
In addition, there are group conflicts that fit seamlessly into the plot  white officers trying to train black soldiers, blacks fighting to be treated as equals, white bigots vs. white non-bigots, Union soldiers and officers persevering despite Confederate threats to execute them for race mixing, and the North vs. the South.
Actual letters written by the real Shaw are used as voice-overs. They give an insight into a man who is empathetic to blacks, has hopes and fears about the Civil War and his regiment, and makes observations about his soldiers' off-the-field culture and camaraderie. His letters make his behavior even more interesting as he evolves into a commander who is often tough toward his trainees.
Although Col. Shaw becomes strong and principled, the evolution of the educated (Thomas) and angry black (played by Denzel Washington) men are even more interesting. Thomas evolves from a privileged man who is a terrible soldier into a profile in courage who overcomes gun wounds to save the life of his personal enemy, Washington, and becomes an outstanding warrior.
Washington is in one great scene after another as he evolves from a selfish, angry man who initiates fights into a war hero who learns how to channel his excessive energy. I generally don't comment on acting, but Washington is spectacular. He earned his Best Supporting Actor award!! I felt like I was watching his character, not him, particularly as he maintained his composure while staring at Col. Shaw as he gets whipped in one of the five best movie scenes I've ever seen.
Washington's intensity in the whipping scene and others (fighting for equal pay, challenging racist white soldiers, lecturing Thomas) leaps off the screen. Sean Penn is a very good actor, but I'm consciously aware it's him when I watch him, and I get the impression he's calibrating how intense he can be without losing his credibility.
"Glory" was even better when I watched it for a second time. I was tempted to give it a 10, but there were a few inexplicable alterations to actual history (Shaw's death was more dramatic in real life), there were minor pacing problems, and I was disappointed that there is not a scene at the end that showed which of the main characters survived. Did they all die? I give "Glory" a 9.
ZWrite