Thoughts, abstractions, observations, extrapolations, introspections, interpolations, innuendos

Movie Review: Glory (1989) Edward Zick, Director; Mathew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman

Glory. Edward Zick, Director; Freddie Fields, Producer; Kevin Jarre, Screenplay; 1989, Freddie Fields Productions, 122 minutes.

Glory tells the story of one of the first African American regiments, the 54th Massachusetts Infantry, in the American Civil War.  Mathew Broderick stars as Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, the white commanding officer, and Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher play fictional members of the 54th. Kevin Jarre wrote the screenplay based on the personal letters of Shaw and the books Lay this Laurel (1973) by Lincoln Kirstein and One Gallant Rush (1965) by Peter Burchard. 

The movie follows Robert Gould Shaw from his experiences at Antietam through his command of the 54th Massachusetts assault on Fort Wagner in 1863.  Shaw, from a prominent abolitionist Boston family, was hand-picked by Governor John Andrew (Alan North) to command this volunteer black regiment.  The regiment experiences prejudices such as a lack of respect from fellow Union solders, deficient supplies from the Army, and assignment to non-combat duties for much of their early deployment.  Shaw writes letters to command and uses family connections to finally get his unit assigned to combat.  In their first skirmish at James Island, South Carolina, the 54th Massachusetts bravely repels Confederate advances and earns respect and recognition from fellow Union soldiers.  Two days later, Colonel Shaw volunteers his regiment to lead the assault on Fort Wagner, despite Command warning that casualties will be massive as the approach to the fort is exposed and narrow.  Previously scorned by their fellow Union solders, the 54th is cheered for their bravery as they prepare to approach the heavily armed fort.  Shaw and his regiment fight hard, but the Confederates prevail and the bodies of Shaw and much of the 54th fall before the ramparts and are buried in a mass grave the following day.  Somber music covers a textual epilogue that explains Fort Wagner survived the Union assault. But the bravery exhibited by the 54th Massachusetts was widely publicized and helped the eventual recruitment of over 180,000 Black Union soldiers which President Lincoln stated were crucial in the eventual victory by the Union.

Rather than a typical “white male hero” story, the movie builds on the relationships between the black soldiers — former gravedigger, Rawlins (Morgan Freeman), escaped slave, Trip (Denzel Washington), and educated friend, Thomas (Andre Braugher) and how each helped inform Shaw as he develops into an effective leader. Each came to the unit with different backgrounds, but became united in their quest for respect, dignity, and a different reality for people like them.

Denzel Washington’s portrayal of Trip, the bitter ex-slave, won him his first Academy Award for Best Supporting actor.  In the tensest sequence of the film, Trip is caught deserting and is subjected to a public lashing.  When Shaw learns that Trip hadn’t really deserted but was merely searching for decent boots near the fort, he admonishes the Quartermaster and secures boots and uniforms for his soldiers.  In reality…neither of those events ever happened.  Because of Governor Andrew’s patronage of this experimental regiment…they were never wanting for adequate supplies.  And public lashes for desertion were specifically banned.

The scene with Trip getting punished can be excused as dramatic liberty.  What isn’t easily explained is the character assassination performed on Colonel James Montgomery (Cliff DeYoung) and General Charles Harker (Bob Gunton) by the writer/director.  In a completely fictional sequence, Colonel Montgomery and General Harker are accused of confiscating supplies from raided southern towns and selling them for personal gain.  Colonel Shaw then threatens that he will expose them if they don’t assign his regiment to combat.  Not only did this event not occur, but Colonel James Montgomery (although somewhat checkered by his Jayhawker past) served honorably for the Union in Florida and later in Missouri and Kansas.  General Harker was a real character that served honorably throughout the Civil War but was never even in the vicinity depicted in the movie.  As a plot device, there is nothing wrong with this sequence, but why not use fictional characters rather than mislead an audience to brand these historical figures as dishonest?

Civil War Historian Shelby Foote consulted on Glory and was later featured in Ken Burns nine-part documentary The Civil War.  That the movie got so much right is a testament to the writer’s and director’s attention to the details in their source material and the times they listened to their consultants.  The few examples of missing historical facts remind us that historians can only inform the client, not necessarily change their actions.  One of the important legacies of the movie Glory was an increase in the number of Civil War reenactors participating in events in the 1990s and 2000s.

I highly recommend Glory as an entertaining and historically acceptable human story of not only the Civil War, but of the struggle endured by black Americans.  More importantly, though, it is a story of resilience, the power of ideas, and the nobility of sacrifice for a greater good.

     James Meeks, Student, University of Missouri-Kansas City

4 responses to “Movie Review: Glory (1989) Edward Zick, Director; Mathew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman”

  1. Jamie Meeks Avatar

    My first draft of this was 1600 words…the assignment stated a 750 word limit. Normal editing and cleanup got me down to 1400 words….then I started slashing paragraphs of analysis, then sentences within paragraphs until I was left with only 800 words or so that seems completely inadequate to review the movie. I just finished reading a biography of James Montgomery — in that book the author spent considerable time explaining how badly Montgomery was treated in the Glory movie…that skewed my review considerably as I wanted to defend this heroic Kansan. My goal is to get better at covering more ideas, succinctly, and always within 1000 words (that is two pages, 12 point, single space)…maybe 500 words is a better target as few people want to read two pages. My motivation to tighten this up and re-write it was largely gone…as I’ve submitted 5 papers since early September and none have been graded yet…so I’m flying a bit blind with no professional feedback to let me know just how far off expected graduate writing standards I am performing. Should I request a refund? Sigh….or, just hit the internet for more “self-learning”…likely the latter…

    Like

  2. Jamie Meeks Avatar

    A couple other historical tidbits…
    The bodies being tossed into a mass grave shows the men barefoot…as their boots would have been removed because they were so valuable to re-use. In actuality, the soldiers would have been stripped nearly naked, as all their clothing was incredibly valuable, especially late in the war. And the movie accurately tells the story of the black soldiers refusing their $10/mo pay as a protest against not getting equal pay of $13/mo like white soldiers. The white officers of the 54th joined the protest and refused their own pay. Eventually, by the end of the war all of them were given back pay equal to the promised $13/mo. In today’s dollars, that is still only $318 per month or $3,800 per year…of course, they didn’t have to pay for cell phones and diet cokes so they didn’t need as much money back then…sigh…

    Like

    1. Lowell Avatar
      Lowell

      I agree, it is tough to consolidate a movies worth of content into a few hundred words. It has been years since I saw this movie. I didn’t know about some of inaccuracies and fabrications you mention, thanks. As in so much of history, there is no need to embellish or fabricate facts, the true history usually is weird and complicated enough. I have to say that the incidents about the shoes, uniforms, getting a combat assignment, supporting Trop, etc do seem to fall into the white savior/ hero narrative, but they do simplify a more complicated story. I concur with the injustice of misrepresenting the white officers. I think a theme that deserves more explanation is why a combat assignment was so important to the 54th, and how that aligned with the romance of war and manhood even white soldiers desired. Hanks for sharing your work. Glad you are willing to get feedback and critique, I am just not that open to that at this time. Hang in there, remember academia is not business, deadlines and deliverables are a little more flexible in academics.

      Like

      1. Jamie Meeks Avatar

        The movie does spend considerable time explaining why it was so important for the regiment to get combat duty and not just provide support and labor behind the lines. Although the movie characterizes the regiment as mostly ex-slaves…that wasn’t true at all. Again, your point about the real history is often more interesting…but, perhaps not within the 120 minute attention span of a movie. These men had volunteered with the promise they would get to show the world their discipline, courage and capabilities…not just their ability to handle a shovel.

        This regiment wasn’t a group of ex-slaves wanting revenge…quite the opposite…they were mostly educated free men recruited from throughout the north by Frederick Douglas’s network and two of Douglas’s sons were in the unit. Within the Union and the north there was incredible friction between abolitionists and racist northerners. The selection of officers for this unit was carefully orchestrated to get abolitionists that would treat the soldiers fairly in place…and throughout their history and assignments it mattered greatly if their upper command supported having black soldiers or not. The entire concept of arming black soldiers went from zero support early in the war to semi-support by the end…as conditions in the field changed and the north came to terms with what they were actually fighting for…

        Like

Leave a comment

4 responses to “Movie Review: Glory (1989) Edward Zick, Director; Mathew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman”

  1. Jamie Meeks Avatar
    Jamie Meeks

    My first draft of this was 1600 words…the assignment stated a 750 word limit. Normal editing and cleanup got me down to 1400 words….then I started slashing paragraphs of analysis, then sentences within paragraphs until I was left with only 800 words or so that seems completely inadequate to review the movie. I just finished reading a biography of James Montgomery — in that book the author spent considerable time explaining how badly Montgomery was treated in the Glory movie…that skewed my review considerably as I wanted to defend this heroic Kansan. My goal is to get better at covering more ideas, succinctly, and always within 1000 words (that is two pages, 12 point, single space)…maybe 500 words is a better target as few people want to read two pages. My motivation to tighten this up and re-write it was largely gone…as I’ve submitted 5 papers since early September and none have been graded yet…so I’m flying a bit blind with no professional feedback to let me know just how far off expected graduate writing standards I am performing. Should I request a refund? Sigh….or, just hit the internet for more “self-learning”…likely the latter…

    Like

  2. Jamie Meeks Avatar
    Jamie Meeks

    A couple other historical tidbits…
    The bodies being tossed into a mass grave shows the men barefoot…as their boots would have been removed because they were so valuable to re-use. In actuality, the soldiers would have been stripped nearly naked, as all their clothing was incredibly valuable, especially late in the war. And the movie accurately tells the story of the black soldiers refusing their $10/mo pay as a protest against not getting equal pay of $13/mo like white soldiers. The white officers of the 54th joined the protest and refused their own pay. Eventually, by the end of the war all of them were given back pay equal to the promised $13/mo. In today’s dollars, that is still only $318 per month or $3,800 per year…of course, they didn’t have to pay for cell phones and diet cokes so they didn’t need as much money back then…sigh…

    Like

    1. Lowell Avatar
      Lowell

      I agree, it is tough to consolidate a movies worth of content into a few hundred words. It has been years since I saw this movie. I didn’t know about some of inaccuracies and fabrications you mention, thanks. As in so much of history, there is no need to embellish or fabricate facts, the true history usually is weird and complicated enough. I have to say that the incidents about the shoes, uniforms, getting a combat assignment, supporting Trop, etc do seem to fall into the white savior/ hero narrative, but they do simplify a more complicated story. I concur with the injustice of misrepresenting the white officers. I think a theme that deserves more explanation is why a combat assignment was so important to the 54th, and how that aligned with the romance of war and manhood even white soldiers desired. Hanks for sharing your work. Glad you are willing to get feedback and critique, I am just not that open to that at this time. Hang in there, remember academia is not business, deadlines and deliverables are a little more flexible in academics.

      Like

      1. Jamie Meeks Avatar
        Jamie Meeks

        The movie does spend considerable time explaining why it was so important for the regiment to get combat duty and not just provide support and labor behind the lines. Although the movie characterizes the regiment as mostly ex-slaves…that wasn’t true at all. Again, your point about the real history is often more interesting…but, perhaps not within the 120 minute attention span of a movie. These men had volunteered with the promise they would get to show the world their discipline, courage and capabilities…not just their ability to handle a shovel.

        This regiment wasn’t a group of ex-slaves wanting revenge…quite the opposite…they were mostly educated free men recruited from throughout the north by Frederick Douglas’s network and two of Douglas’s sons were in the unit. Within the Union and the north there was incredible friction between abolitionists and racist northerners. The selection of officers for this unit was carefully orchestrated to get abolitionists that would treat the soldiers fairly in place…and throughout their history and assignments it mattered greatly if their upper command supported having black soldiers or not. The entire concept of arming black soldiers went from zero support early in the war to semi-support by the end…as conditions in the field changed and the north came to terms with what they were actually fighting for…

        Like

Leave a comment