leeper@mtgzx.att.com (Mark R. Leeper) (01/15/90)
GLORY
A film review by Mark R. Leeper
Copyright 1990 Mark R. Leeper
Capsule review: Excellent Civil War film of the first
black regiment and the prejudice they faced. At times it
seems a little over-idealized, but no more so than most films
about World War II. Realistically photographed by Freddie
Francis and well acted, particularly by Morgan Freeman.
Rating: +2.
At a time when Hollywood is simply not making many films set in
previous centuries, perhaps even the novelty of Edward Zwick's Civil War
film GLORY might carry it. However, Zwick's film goes beyond that to being
one of the best Civil War films ever made. GLORY tells the story of the
U. S. Army's 54th Massachusetts Regiment, the first black regiment in the
Army's history. The 54th had two enemies it had to fight. The Confederate
Army was second. First they had to fight the Union Army for the privilege
of being treated as soldiers. From the start, the all-black regiment--with
two white officers--was an experiment programmed for failure. Command was
given to Robert Gould Shaw, a 23-year-old inexperienced at command.
Further, they were criminally under-provisioned, having to battle the army
for such basics as uniforms, shoes, socks, and guns; one scene shows a black
soldier standing guard duty with a spear. They have to fight for
provisions, they have to fight to be sent to the front, and finally they
have to fight to fight. Their training was by--among others--an Irish
racist who apparently thought that blacks were Hindus. In spite of this,
and in spite of the army cheating them out of their fair salary, they
distinguished themselves sufficiently to become cannon fodder. GLORY is
their story.
Or more accurately, it is the story of the white officers who led them
and the story of five soldiers who shared the same tent upon enlisting. All
the other blacks in the film are effectively spear-carriers (in some cases
literally). Even given that Colonel Shaw was supposed to be young, Matthew
Broderick seems a little too boyish for the role. He carries too much
baggage from previous roles in which he always played the role of the
"wise-guy kid." He is a little hard to take seriously as the committed
idealist, though he does much better in Shaw's moments of self-doubt. Much
better is Morgan Freeman as Rawlins. Freeman could easily have carried the
film as the main character and as it is he is likely to get an Oscar
nomination as Best Supporting Actor (as well as a nomination for Best Actor
for DRIVING MISS DAISY).
One of the unsung stars of the film is Freddie Francis, director of
photography. Francis was director of photography on such films as THE
INNOCENTS, THE FRENCH LIEUTENANT'S WOMAN, THE ELEPHANT MAN, and DUNE.
Francis is superb at creating a period feel. From his visualization of the
battle of Antietam, the viewer realizes that he is going for authentic feel
rather than dramatic effect. His view of a Civil War surgery is somewhat
harrowing, to say the least. His photography rounds out the film and makes
for a very satisfying view of history. My rating is a +2 on the -4 to +4
scale.
Mark R. Leeper
att!mtgzx!leeper
leeper@mtgzx.att.com