a review of glory

Glory captures the heroism of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw andthe
first black regiment in the Civil War, the Massachusetts"Fighting"
Fifty-fourth. An extremely talented cast and crewearned three Academy
Awards (cinematography, sound and supportingactor) and five
nominations for their work in Glory. Theoutstanding cinematography,
sound, score and acting recreate theevents leading up to the Union
attack on Fort Wagner on July 18th1863. Matthew Broderick portrays
the young Bostonian abolitionistCol. Robert G. Shaw who takes
command of the Fifty-fourth,following the Emancipation Proclamation.
Shaw along with CabotForbes (Cary Elwes) leads a band of ex slaves,
servants and otherblack volunteers including a rebellious runaway slave
Trip(Denzel Washington), Shaw's educated childhood friend
ThomasSearles (Andre Braugher), and a former grave digger
Rawlins(Morgan Freeman). Together these men face the adversity of
aracist Union Army, struggling to prove themselves worthy of
theirgovernment issued blue uniforms. After months of training and
exploitation for physicallabor, the Fifty-fourth gains the opportunity to fight
in anattack on Fort Wagner on the beaches of South Carolina. Poisedto
dispel the belief that blacks would not be disciplined underfire, the
Fifty-fourth leads the almost suicidal attack on Ft.Wagner. There Col.
Shaw valiantly falls and the Fifty-fourth,suffering great losses, displayed
the courage that persuaded theUnion to enlist many more black soldiers.
Matthew Broderick delivers a noteworthy performance in therole of Col.
Shaw, which Leonard Maltin calls his most ambitiouspart. In an interview
for the New York Times, Broderick spoke ofhis method acting, "The
first step [in preparing for the role of Robert GouldShaw in Glory] was to
try to learn as much as I could about thereal person. That was mostly
from letters, photographs,descriptions and a poem by Emerson. The
thing I had to do wasbring myself into that situation. I didn't want to be
animitation of what I thought Shaw must have been like." Broderick's
acting talent has been noted on Broadway as well asin films. Broderick

won a Tony Award for his performance in"Brighton Beach Memoirs" in
1983, a year after his film debut inMax Dugan Returns. (Maltin, 102) But it
was his role as acomputer hacker in War Games and his role as a
handsome youngteen touring Chicago in Ferris Bueller's Day Off that
alertedmoviegoers to his talent. Denzel Washington has received
critical acclaim for his roleas Trip (as well as an Oscar for Best Supporting
Actor). Denzel commented on the role of Trip in an interview with the
NewYork Times. "Trip's an instigator - wild, rebellious, angry. He's
aproduct of racism who's become a racist. He hates all whitepeople,
Confederates most of all. But in the end, when he seesthe white officers
make the maximum sacrifice, he's the mostpatriotic one in the bunch."
Director of Glory, Edward Zwick described Washington by
stating,"Whatever that mysterious chemical process is that makes
thecamera love someone, he has more of it than any one
personshould."(Maltin, 921) It is that presence that earned him anOscar
for Glory and nominations for his roles in Cry Freedom andMalcolm X.
Equally as important as acting to the impact of the movieGlory is the
Musical score composed by James Horner. In thefinal battle scene in
Glory, Horner chose the Boys Choir ofHarlem which creates a moving
effect during the death of Col.Robert Shaw.(Magill, 158) Horner won a
Grammy Award for thescore for Glory. He was nominated the same year
for an AcademyAward for the score for Field of Dreams. Horner's
previousGrammy Awards include song of the year and best song written
fora motion picture or television, all for "Somewhere Out There"from An
American Tale in 1987. (CTFT, 228) Leonard Maltin callsHorner one of
today's most prolific film composer's. Hornercomposed thirty one motion
picture scores from 1979 to 1989.(Maltin, 411) There are many
elements that contribute to the success of afilm. Glory combines the best
cinematography, sound, score, andacting to create a moving
representation of this portion of U. S.history. Roger Ebert called it a

"strong and valuable film." In his review written for the Chicago
Sun-Times, Ebert notes theamount of effort devoted to accurate period
detail. One of Ebert's criticisms of Glory is that the perspectiveof the
movie is constantly seen from one view, that of the whiteofficer. Ebert
points out that a white man is cast as the leadrole when the movie is
essentially about a black experience. Glory could have been told from the
eyes of a black soldier inthe Fifty-fourth. Ebert makes a valid assumption
when he suggestthat a totally different film could be made from the
samematerial. Indeed Glory is a story of how the freed blacks were
able toprove themselves in battle. The Fifty- fourth regiment couldalso be
considered one of the first times we see blacks look forequal opportunity.
Ebert notes the scene when the black soldiersof the Fifty-fourth learn they
will not be paid the regular(white) wage. "Blacks march as far, bleed as
much and die assoon, they argue."(Ebert) It would be 100 years later
that theygained equal opportunity when in Vietnam both black and
whitesoldiers were interspersed in the military. While Roger
Ebertdiscusses the idea of a different point of view he notes thatGlory is
an important film no matter who's eyes it is seen from. Blake Lukas on
the other hand is far more critical of thefilm. In Lukas' review for Magill's
Cinema Annual he picks atelements of the film, including weak
characterization anddirecting that leaves something to be desired. Lukas
seems attimes to be lost in his own rhetoric when he writes about
thedismal war genre. He delves into the number of Vietnam filmsthat are
"a far more popular subject in this period."(Magill,155) After a brief
synopsis of the film Lukas comments on thedynamics of the protagonist
character who we see mature throughthe film. The remaining characters
Lukas believes lackdimension. He calls the role of Cabot Forbes
"fleetinglyinteresting" and the role of Trip, (which Denzel Washington
wonBest Supporting Actor for) "predictable." He goes on further tosay
that the role of Rawlins portrayed by Morgan Freeman is onlyenlightened

by this "brilliant actor's own characteristicintelligence." Therefore without
the phenomenal acting talentpresented in Glory Lukas feels the movie
would be flat. In addition to finding flaw in the characterization
Lukascompares director Edward Zwick to the director John Ford.
Forddirected earlier Civil War films such as The Horse Soldiers(1959)or
Sergeant Rutledge (1960)which based on the an all blackcalvary
regiment in the Civil War. Lukas suggest that Ford wasable to attain a
"thematic richness" that alluded Zwick. Lukasalso remarks that Zwick
used ineffective "emphasis on close upsand shallow focus which do little
to make the film's historicalmoment seem alive in spite of admirable
attention to detail inthe art direction sets and costumes." Lukas is
impressed however by Zwick's direction of the finalscene in which he
uses "vigorous tracking shots " to create a"stunning effect." Lukas also
comments on the James's Horner'sinventive use of the Boy's Choir of
Harlem. Lukas suggest thatZwick looked to appeal to contemporary
audiences. Interestinglyenough Lukas is surprised that Glory met with
such "critical andcommercial success." I was surprised to read the
review written by Blake Lukaswhere he constantly compares Zwick to a
former director of CivilWar films John Ford, and when he persist in
mentioning the dismalnature of most war films. Lukas states that "Glory
offers anidealism and sense of heroism that contrast powerfully to
thespectacle of bloodshed and war's waste of life that it alsovisualizes."
Lukas seems hung up on the waste of life that isportrayed in war film's.
In my opinion Glory was not a movieabout whether or not we as a nation
should participate in wars. It was about the progress of the black race and
the fierce battlethey had to fight a long the way to attain each rung on
theladder of freedom. Lukas criticism seems out of place when hewrites
about Vietnam and the "American soldier's potential forbarbarism."
Lukas also seems hung up on the past. he makes two commentswhich
seem out of place. First when comparing Zwick to Ford hestates that

Zwick does not attempt the same "thematic richness"and that "(Zwick's)
sensibilities are more attuned with theresponses of the 1989 audiences."
I don't think Zwick should befaulted for creating a film that is appealing to
contemporaryaudiences." I certainly would not go see a film directed
byLukas. Desson Howe reviewing Glory for the Washington Post
likeLukas notes that the scriptwriter Jarre (who's credits includeRambo:
First Blood Part II) provides only a superficialcharacterization "his script is
made better by the performers."Howe believes that the is too much
"liberal eyed giddiness(thanks chiefly to the gushy, rhapsodizing score by
JamesHorner)." Both Ebert and Lukas acclaim Broderick's performance
of Shaw,yet Howe criticizes it writing, "In this movie he is an
amiablenon-presence, creating unintentionally the notion that he
Fifty-fourth earned its stripes despite wimpy leadership." Thiscomment
lead me to wonder whether Howe and I saw the same movie. Howe notes
that the performance of Denzel Washington, and MorganFreeman uplift
the film. Perhaps the reviewers did not have the luxury of time
toresearch the history of Robert Gould Shaw or the Fifty-fourth. If so they
would have found that Shaw was indeed a youthfulofficer given charge of
the Fifty-Fourth as Colonel at the age of26. Understanding Shaw
philosophical views as an abolitionistand the societal views of blacks
being subservient to whites,certainly a young man leading the first black
regiment wouldexperience a certain degree of self doubt and
contradiction. Inthe end Shaw develops the courage to lead his men into
battle toa symbolic triumph displaying the bravery of these blacksoldiers.
Broderick's portrayal of Shaw is credible from mypoint of view. The
credibility of Glory is heighten by the amount of effortdevoted to
recreating the historical details. From the camps tothe costumes Glory
captures the aura of battle. Most of thecritics agree that the historical
detail was a redeeming elementof the film. Glory is a film that balances
it shortcomings out withexceptional talent. Perhaps a lack of dimension

in thecharacters is balanced with outstanding performances. Any faultsin
the directing are made up by the detail put in to the film andthe superior
sound and score. Glory is a carefully constructedfilm with a didactic
theme. It is an accurate representation ofthe lives of Civil War soldiers.
The climax of the movie is fairly accurately represented. The Fifty-fourth
regiment had slightly over five hundred memberswhen they marched into
battle on July 18th, 1863. Over twohundred and fifty members of the
regiment died in that battle andseveral more were injured. That is what
proved to the whiteregiments looking on that the black soldiers were
worthy ofbattle. Glory captures that triumph.
BibliographyContemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Detroit:
GaleResearch, Volume 10Ebert, Roger. The Chicago Sun-Times,
January 12, 1990Howe, Desson. The Washington Post, January 12,
1990Lukas, Blake. Magill's Cinema Annual 1990, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.:
Salem Press, 1990Maltin, Leonard. Leonard Maltin's Movie
Encyclopedia, ThePenguin Publishing Company, New York, NY 1994.
All I ever needed to know about Glory, I learned in AMCV 192.
Stephanie Beck April
9, 1997 Prof. Deutch