Let me just preface this post by saying that no matter how many times I watch Glory, I ALWAYS cry. Sometimes more than once. That being, said, let’s discuss it as a historical source. I’m kind of torn as far as this movie goes because I feel as though it got quite a bit right, but still missed the overall impact of the 54th Regiment and what it signalled for the Civil War and the United States as a whole.
It seemed to me that an attempt was made to get at least the minor details right, such as Shaw’s burial in a mass grave, the presence of Gov. Andrews and Frederick Douglass, and the casualities suffered by the 54th Regiment at Fort Wagner. Even some of the things the characters discussed, such as Trip’s line, “What will we get after the war?” The realities about how blacks were treated during the war and what they saw coming after the war seemed pretty spot on. Granted, there was probably a much more racist attitude than was presented; unlike Amistad the director of Glory decided to spare the audience their stomach. But the general dislike and hatred of whites towards blacks in the army, even by the fighting Shaw had to do for the shoes, was present. But I think Trip’s line is one of the things that really struck me. You saw the optimism and the eargerness of the black soldiers to fight and join up with the army. But what was shown to much less of a degree is what they thought would happen after the war. I’m sure there was that doubt and I thought it was clever of the screenwriters to include that.
But this movie also had it’s downfalls and what I like to call its “Patriot moments.” Two that really stick out in my mind actually come from the very end. You have Colonel Shaw’s dramatic death and plummet back down the hill and Trip’s intense flag grab as he raised it into the air when Shaw was shot. I also have a hard time believing that members of the 54th Regiment would tear up their pay stubs in an outburst against the US Government. However, moments like these are, what I think, make it an attractive movie. I also feel as if the movie missed the overall importance of this regiment. It signaled a shift in the Civil War and the movie didn’t quite explain that until the very end .. with the text. And there were also other black regiments than the 54th. Although Montgomery discusses his regiment (or “little monkey children”) they are shown as a group of 4-year-olds essentially, and that’s the only other mention of colored regiments besides Shaw’s. Also, didn’t General Butler create the idea of the contrabands? If changing this one historical figure into a random one in order to create a villain, I’m going to have an issue. On that note, there are definitely a few things off about this movie, but overall it’s a good movie. To me, this is the type of historical movie that the general public would take interest in. It isn’t ever really slow, it has an all-star cast (especially for the 80s) and it’s an interesting history.
Oh, but I do have one question - wasn’t flogging outlawed in the Army by the time of the Civil War? Because that would make Trip’s punishment quite illegal. (I’m a mess during that scene too.)
Also, please watch the trailer. Talk about intense. No wonder it made $63,661 during its first weekend. (And it was only offered on 3 screens. Thank you, imdb)
