I watched part of the "Making of Gettysburg" last night, and if it's any
indication of what's to come, I have mixed feelings. The scenes from the film
did have a sweep and majesty to them that is unforgettable. But the characters
hardly bring to my mind anything worth knowing about CSA or Union generalship.
If the command school is using -Killer Angels- for anything other than
its literary qualities (in the broadest sense), then I'd like to see their
curriculum. The new biography of Joshua Chamberlain indicates just how
atypical this man was, and how cloistered the 19th c. reformers' world was.
Chamberlain is a sympathetic figure, no doubt, but it's a bit too much to
see Ken Burns gushing over the philosopher-kings he thinks manned the battle-
ments and led the troops. Sheen's Lee looks drugged, apathetic, and as if
he just emerged from Plato's cave. It reminds me of Safire's -Freedom-,
which has its characters weighing heavy issues of national policy and the
country's future at almost every street corner.
For what it's worth, I think "Gettysburg" will have a similar kind of impact
as the Burns documentary: it will rekindle the country's fascination with
the war and remind us of the real value of historical consciousness. But
both films (if "Gettysburg" lives up to its billings and the preview last
night) overstate the majesty and myth of the war (myth not = inaccuracies,
but myth = exaggerations and distortions of character, motive, plot for
sentimental reasons). This is why I have such difficulty with using reenactors
and spending millions of $ on getting the right tobacco pouch for Lew
Armistead: these folks concentrate on the trees rather than the forest. I'm
anxious to see the movie, and to hear what list members have to say about it.
Peter Knupfer
Kansas State University
pknupfer@ksuvm