Newsgroup: it.cultura.storia.militare
Titolo: Gettysburg e Gods and Generals

Poichè me li stò "procurando" (il mezzo è facile immaginarlo ) volevo avere 
prima un giudizio critico-storico su questi due films , anche perchè il 
fatto di vederli in inglese già mi renderà ostico capire tutti i dialoghi.
grazie
Mitra 

 fatto di vederli in inglese già mi renderà ostico capire tutti i dialoghi.
Premetto che non ho visto nessuno dei due. A G&G mi sono fermato
dopo i primi trenta secondi circa, dopo aver visto il Lee del 1861
rappresentato con la barba bianca (va cmq detto che Robert Duvall
per assomigliare a Lee avrebbe bisogno di ben più di una barba).
Se quello è il livello della ricerca storica, grazie tante. [N.B. all'epoca
Lee non solo non aveva la barba, ma i suoi baffi erano scuri. La versione
"patriarcale" che tutti conosciamo compare dall'inverno 1861-62].
Non parliamo poi del tricheco baffuto che dovrebbe impersonare il suo
interlocutore Winfield Scott.
Di Gettysburg ho visto i primi dieci minuti circa, e poi anche lì ho deciso
che il tempo restante poteva essere impiegato meglio (ammetto cmq che
Martin Sheen è leggermente più somigliante). Mi dicono che in una delle
scene, se si guarda il cielo con attenzione, si vede la scia di un jet.
Mi risulta, se non sbaglio, che ambo i film sono basati sui romanzi di
Shaara. Se così è, hanno il valore storico di un fumetto manga, e vanno
guardati per puro divertimento (a me non divertivano, ma i gusti sono
gusti), non come approfondimento. Magari in un prossimo pomeriggio
piovoso provo a riguardarmeli.
-- 
Davide
"Solo se la vostra visione va oltre quella del vostro maestro,
siete adatti per ricevere e tramandare la trasmissione."
(Massima Zen)

Si, già immaginavo che la caratterizzazione dei personaggi sarebbe stata 
trascurata (ormai non mi aspetto nulla di buono da questo punto di vista da 
nessun film storico) ; sono più curioso su come hanno realizzato gli 
scontri. 

 ha scritto

Credo benino perchè hanno chiamato una gran quantità di reenactors a
fare da comparse (più o meno gratis, per loro intimo gaudio).
Per curiosità riporto un paio di interventi da un forum americano
sui reenactors nei film ACW:
---------------------------------
Comments from reenactors who have worked on movies:
1) Don't lend anything to any of the actors: when they realize they
have received junk from the props department, you'll never get it back.
2) Don't offer any advice, they won't listen anyway.
3) Make sure you have a good time, no one else is taking it all that
seriouly anyway.
4) Remember you are there for the money used for battlefield
preservation, they just might give some in the long run.
5) You are there only for window dressing. That's your one and only job.
6) Don't expect to be in the movie, your odds of actually being
recognizable in the movie is slim to none.
7) Remember, this is your volunteered vacation time, use it wisely,
everyone else is making the money.
-------------------------------------
Appropros of what we've discussing concerning historians,
reenactors, and, in at least one comment, movies, I thought folks
would be interested in hearing from a professional historian who is
also an avid reenactor and who also worked on a major Hollywood
production.
These are comments made by Dr. Greg Urwin of Temple University:
I worked on the Civil War epic _Glory_. I helped train a good
number of the black extras who composed the film version of the 54th
Massachusetts according to William J. Hardee's 1855 _Rifle and Light
Infantry Tactics_ (the Union Army's infantry drill manual at the
start of the Civil War). My "troops" included thirteen of my own
students from the University of Central Arkansas, a black museum
director from Little Rock (my first sergeant), three vans full of
first-time offenders from Arizona or New Mexico who were sentenced
to work on the film as community service (in hopes of filling them
with black pride), a would-be actor from Missouri (who would never
be discovered), and a couple of black reenactors. I then commanded
the movie regiment's Company E, which was posted closest to the
ocean during the Fort Wagner assault sequence that climaxes the
film. I was blown up repeatedly during the filming, which was great
fun.
After experiencing the chaos and emotionalism endemic to film sets,
I was surprised that the _Glory_ turned out to be as fine a product
as it was.
Production values were quite high. The producers did a good job
reproducing the look of the period, including uniforms, weapons, and
equipment. (We carried Model 1853 Enfield rifle muskets just like
the original 54th Massachusetts -- although the originals did not
bear serial numbers like those used in the film.) _Glory_ gave the
public a graphic introduction to the senseless linear tactics that
made the Civil War such a bloodbath. The south curtain and
southwest bastion of Fort Wagner looked as good close up, and they
did on film. The section of the fortification was recreated at two-
thirds its original length. Its sand wall towered to its original
30-foot height, and the moat was a proper 50 feet wide with 3 feet
of water inside. Walking along the fort's parapet, I had no idea
that the Confederate siege guns positioned there had fiberglass
barrels until I touched them.
The film captured the spirit of the U.S. Colored Troops as well as
the racist treatment that black Union troops had to endure from
their white comrades. It correctly depicted Robert Gould Shaw as a
Boston Brahmin conflicted about his new role, as well as the family
pressures that influenced his decision to become the 54th's first
colonel. The enlisted men of the 54th did refuse to take unequal
pay for their first eighteeen months in service (when the injustice
was ended).
Of course, the script writer, director, and producers took many
liberties with the facts. Shaw was a blond, not a brunette (I guess
Matthew Broderick was not interested in changing his hair color).
Shaw and many of his officers were seasoned combat veterans by the
time they joined the 54th Massachusetts. They did not need to
import an Irish sergeant major to handle training. They and their
black NCOs, many of whom were highly educated, handled the business
themselves. (Although some USCT regiments composed of Southern
slaves were assigned white NCOs during their initial organization.
These NCOs hoped to obtain commissions in USCT units.) Camp Meigs
was not a ruined railroad facility, but a collection of wooden
barracks.
Most of the 54th's enlisted men were free blacks, not runaway
slaves. Governor John Andrew of Massachusetts, an ardent
abolitionist, saw to it that the regiment was equipped with the best
of everything -- weapons, clothing, shoes, etc. The men were not
denied shoes or uniforms, and they were not forced to drill
initially with pikes. The 54th's first sergeant major was Lewis
Douglass (son of Frederick), a young man and not the venerable
father figure portrayed by Morgan Freeman.
On July 18, 1863, the 54th Massachusetts charged from south to
north. In the film, we charged from north to south (there was a
water tower at the north end of Jekyll Island, which would have
marred the shot, and the director had other considerations as well,
such as lighting, shadows, etc.) The 54th Massachusetts did not halt
its attack when it came under fire and sought shelter in sand dunes
until darkness fell -- it began its attack at dusk (7:45 P.M.) and
kept going until its spearhead reached the top of the south
curtain. It was here that Shaw was killed (not halfway up the
wall). His body fell inside the fort, and some of his men jumped
over the wall to fight and die beside his corpse. Others stayed on
the outer side of the curtain, firing at the Rebs until the
regiment, receiving no direct support from the white regiments
following it, withdrew.
Contrary to the film's epilogue, Fort Wagner did fall -- to a Union
siege, rather than an assault.
All in all, I think that _Glory_ got the history about 40 to 50
percent right, which is not bad for Hollywood. It is a respectable
representation of the black military experience in the Civil War and
captures the spirit of the U.S. Colored Troops, for all its factual
errors about a specific regiment. It provides a tighter story than
_Gettysburg_, and it is a much better work of drama than _Gods and
Generals_. Many of its flaws resulted from the artistic vision of
its director, Ed Zwick, who had never worked on an epic before, and
whose grasp of history left much to be desired (although he could be
influenced to a certain degree by historical consultants).
Fortunately, Zwick's dumbest ideas ended up on the cutting room
floor. These included:
1) Recruits for the 54th entering Camp Meigs singing a rap version
of "We Are Coming Father Aba'am." (We told Zwick that 19th century
blacks did not sing that way, but he responded, "I'm an expert on
black music!")
2) Shaw having an affair with Charlotte Forten, a light-skinned
black teacher in a freedmen's school on the Sea Islands.
3) A mass nude scene -- Shaw ordering the 54th's recruits to march
into a river to bathe, as if free blacks did not know how to keep
themselves clean.
One of the greatest things about working on _Glory_ was having Allan
R. Millett of the Ohio State University assigned as my second-in-
command.
There is a lot of hurry-up-and-wait in movie work, and this
arrangement gave me a week to talk shop with one of the masters in
the military history profession. Talk about a dream opportunity!
It was also a tremendous advantage to have a lieutenant colonel in
the U.S. Marine Reserves to help handle the troops instead of
another reenactor officer. During the filming, the production
people used white officers as foremen to boss black extras. They
worked us twelve to fourteen hours a day (since the Fort Wagner
assault was conducted at night, shooting customarily lasted until
1:00 or 2:00 A.M. each day). They housed us in movie prop tents
(made of thin white canvas) on a campground infested with sand
fleas. (As soon as the sun comes up, the inside of your tent is as
light as day, which left most of us sleep deprived.)
It's one thing to play soldier for a weekend, but to do it for seven
days straight -- that is more of a test. In addition, most of our
black reenactors were new to the hobby, having been recruited
expressly to work on this film, and I don't think most were properly
prepared for what they had to endure.
As fatigue set in, racial tensions erupted among the various 54th
Massachusetts companies. Black enlisted men (many of them business
owners and professionals) came to resent being bossed around by
white reenactors (many of whom were inferior to their troops in
education, economic status, and maturity). Fortunately, there were
few problems of that sort in my company, and the reason for that
was "Second Lieutenant" Millett. As a trained Marine officer, he
could sense when one of our men was reaching the end of his tether.
Time and time again, I would see Allan quietly take a guy off to the
side for a heart to heart talk. He made the fellow feel important --
made him feel that we understood what he was suffering and that we
had his best interests at heart -- and the fellow would return to
the ranks good to go for the rest of the day (and in most cases, for
the rest of the shoot). Watching Allan at work taught me a lesson
about the kind of personnel management skills that are instilled in
modern military officers.
It also drove home that there is a big difference between reeactors
and real soldiers.
Recognizing the limits of reenacting has not kept me from enjoying
the hobby, or acknowledging that it can offer the general public
some insights into history. I feel the same way about historical
films.
_Glory_ aroused a great deal of interest in the U.S. Colored Troops
during the Civil War, and publishers have fed that interest ever
since with a solid stream of scholarly books and articles, not to
mention popular publications.
I imagine that _Zulu_ is responsible for creating the large market
that persists for books on Rorke's Drift, Isandlwana, and the Zulu
War. We owe Hollywood a debt for leading more thoughtful members of
its audience to serious historians. It is up to us to educate those
people in the difference between Hollywood and history.
--------------------


 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:JxPFf.71821$av6....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...

Gods and Generals non l'ho mai visto.
Gettysburg e' uno dei cinque film piu' noiosi della storia del cinema. Non 
so quali siano gli altri quattro, ma il quinto e' senz'altro Gettysburg. E' 
talmente soporifero che non so nemmeno dire con certezza se la ricostruzione 
delle varie fasi della battaglia sia realistica e quanto: credo di essermi 
assopito durante l'unica volta che l'ho fatto girare sul videoregistratore.
Come gia' notato, la caratterizzazione fisica e psicologica dei personaggi 
e' carente, ma io non sono tra quelli che attribuiscono un'importanza 
estrema alla somiglianza fisica tra attore e personaggio e simili dettagli 
(in un film di guerra pero' *esigo* la massima verosimiglianza possibile dei 
mezzi ed equipaggiamenti: gli anacronismi macroscopici e gli errori 
marchiani su mezzi ed equipaggiamento mi fanno imbestialire. Per capirci: i 
volti dipinti degli Scozzesi in Braveheart - film in cui, per inciso, 
Stirling Bridge, Falkirk e Bannockburn non hanno quasi nulla a che vedere 
con le battaglie storiche - sono un anacronismo, ma non insopportabile. Gli 
M113 in un film su Alamein sono insopportabili).
Glory, citato nel post di Davide Pastore, e' senz'altro meglio in tutti i 
sensi. Capisco che il purista vi riscontri diversi errori e semplificazioni, 
ma io sono dell'idea che un film di guerra non debba essere la copia 
conforme dell'evento bellico (cosa del resto impossibile, anche volendolo). 
Il film "copia conforme" diventa rapidamente inguardabile, e paradossalmente 
questo e' forse proprio il caso di Gettysburg: secondo molti di coloro che 
l'hanno fatta, la guerra, quella vera, e' al 90% lavoro, noia e routine, e 
la noia esce a pacchi da ogni pixel di Gettysburg. Il film di guerra 
riuscito condensa in due ore l'impatto terribile, disumano ed esaltante di 
quel 10% di caotica violenza e morte che la guerra comporta, e cerca di dare 
un senso - di qualsiasi segno, ma un senso ed un'interpretazione - a quello 
che mostra.
Haydn