Conference bookie::movies

    Yes Alan, Ted Turner originally inteded it to be a tv-movie but due to
    its granduer and length he decided to keep it basically uncut and
    release it the theater where the audience can enjoy the full effect of
    the larger image - he does plan to release it later next year as a
    miniseries type thing run over 2 or 3 nights.
    
    Joyce

    
    I had heard (or read) that the version to be shown on TV is longer
    than the theatrical release. The theatrical release has been cut
    as short as possible without taking away from the original intent.
    All that was cut out will be shown in the TV version. Also they
    said that the theatrical version has a 20 minute intermission due
    to its length.
    
    Patty

    The TNT show "The making of Gettsyburg" was great.  I would suggest
    that you see it before the movie.  It gave great insight to the
    strategy and significance of the battle.

    My wife watched it with me, and learned a great deal of the battle,
    and she is now looking forward to seeing the movie.  (Before she
    thought it was going to be another 'war movie')

    Shelby Foote and Ken Burns, the guy who directed and wrote the PBS Civil 
    War series are in the TV show and give insight.  Martin Sheen narrates.

    I can't wait to see the movie!

    Chip

    I recommend the book "The Killer Angels" by Michael Shaara (won a
    Pulitzer in 1974).  I believe the movie was based on his text.

    It tells the story of the battle from the point of view of a small
    number of key participants (Lee, Longstreet, Buford, Chamberlain,
    Hancock, Pickett, etc).  After reading it I could clearly see the
    progression of the battle as it related to both the personalities of
    the participants and the geography of the area around Gettysburg - and
    it's a marvelous read to boot.
    
    <clb> 

    Just don't tell us who wins the battle. :)

_Gettysburg_ is doing amazingly well for a 4+ hour film. Since you can only
get in two showings a day and people tend to be intimidated by the length of
the film they usually do poorly at the gate. But _Gettysburg_ is doing more
business per theatre than any other film presently. That says a lot about
word of mouth especially since it has the further handicap of being pretty
much dramitized history, another strike against a film's ticket sales normally.


Randy

    I saw this movie. Excellent. One of my daughter's teachers has seen it
    twice. I don't think I could take it twice. However, I'd like to own
    the movie when it comes out. Hopefully if Ted Turner does add footage
    for a multi-night TV presentation that he sells the full length
    version.
    
    I am war buff of the Civil War, WWII & the Korean War (conflict). As I
    have never served in the military, I am awestruck by the sacrifices
    that men & women make in defending their point of view. Gettysburg
    showed that. The scenes with Sam Elliott and how a Civil War battle was
    fought was mind blowing. They walk up to each other at a point and wail
    away with muskets. The noise and terror of that is something I find
    hard to imagine.

    I saw this over the weekend, and enjoyed it quite a bit.  I went with a
    friend who is a Civil War buff, so he was able to fill me in on some
    background, and I think that made it even more interesting, even though
    I've always found US history interesting, anyway.  I enjoyed the inside
    look at the personalities of the different leaders, and I especially
    liked Col. Chamberlain.  He was apparently quite an unusual person - a
    combination of decency, intelligence and bravery.  I think Jeff Daniels
    does an excellent job of portraying him.
    
    All in all, a good movie.  Sad, though.  It made me cry at the end. 
    Sad to think it was all true, too.
    
    Lorna
    

    I saw this last night, and also thought it was pretty good.  Very long,
    and the patriotic rhetoric occasionally dragged, but generally well
    done.
    
    I was interested in the treatment (and casting) of Robert E. Lee's
    role.  The character played by Martin Sheen was intensely serious and
    evidently competent, but not deserving (no human could be) of the
    worship of his soldiers, and the film implied that his decision
    to fight the battle, on unfavourable ground chosen by the enemy, was
    influenced by his sense that he was an agent of God's will.  At the
    end, speaking to a group of soldiers, he takes blame for the defeat,
    saying "I thought we were invincible."  Was this an actual historical
    incident?  The casting of Martin Sheen seemed to me to support this
    portrayal of a strong, serious man who was not quite big enough for the
    situation.
    
    The battle scenes were very tense and interesting.  This is a pretty
    good movie.
    
    -Stephen

    The Army of Northern Virginia had won battle after battle with fewer
    men and material than their chief opponent the Union Army of the
    Potomic.  Much of their success was due to Lee's genius and aggressive
    nature.  The men did indeed worship Lee.  I don't think he believed he
    was an agent of God but the adoration of his men and the track record
    of his Army must have lead him to become overly confident.
    
    The loss of his right arm and avenging angel, Stonewall Jackson,
    probably contributed more to the Confederate defeat than any other
    single factor.
    
    Marv
    

    re .9, it certainly did look as though Lee sent his men to the
    slaughter during Pickett's charge.  According to history books, that's
    what really happened, but I don't know why Lee made the decision he
    did.  It seemed like a horrible mistake to me.  Not a decision I would
    care to have to live with afterwards.  
    
    I liked the scene where the troops were cheering Lee, and he was
    reaching out to touch as many hands as he could.  It really showed how
    much the ordinary soldiers worshiped him, and I think this really was
    the case.  Afterall, even now, over 100 yrs. after his death he is
    remembered as a hero, and he lost!  I imagine that the real Lee must
    have had a tremendous amount of charisma.
    
    On a humorous note, the scene where the troops are cheering Lee, and
    reaching out their hands to touch him, reminded me *exactly* of Bruce
    Springsteen and U2 concerts I have attended, in the past, with the fans
    stretching out their arms to touch Bruce, or Bono, and the stars trying
    on their part, to touch as many hands as they can.  :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    Also, it boggles my mind to realize that 53,000 men died during the 3
    days of the battle.  Almost as many as we lost in the entire Vietnam
    War.  I find it difficult to comprehend.  It was a real tragedy.
    
    Also, in regard to the patriotic rhetoric, usually that bothers me,
    too, but I thought Jeff Daniels did a very good job with his speech. 
    Also, it's supposed to be what the real Chamberlain said that day to
    his men.  Chamberlain was a professor at Bowdoin, who went on to become
    a governor of Maine, and there are a lot of records kept of his life,
    so it's supposed to be fairly accurate.
    
    Lorna
    

    I thought the "patriotic rhetoric," though believable and sometimes
    eloquent, occasionally dragged a bit.  Specifically, the scene just
    before the great charge, between Armistead and the British
    fop/Coldstream Guards officer, in which Armistead explains the Virginia
    patriotism of his men, disclaiming any special status derivcing from
    the military tradition of his family, though interesting, had me a
    little impatient.  Though I enjoyed Jeff Daniels's performance, his
    initial speech to the mutineers struck me as a shade idealistic for the
    situation.  If that is what he actually said, I am very impressed.
    
    This film did leave me with the desire to read a good historical work
    on the battle.  Can anyone recommend a good book (other than the novel
    "The Killer Angels," on which the movie was based)?
    
    

    re .12
    
      There was a combined 53,??? "casualties" resulting from the battle. 
    That number includes wounded and missing as well as those killed.  I
    don't have the actual number of dead with me but I can provide it if
    you'd like.
    
      In any case it was a horrible loss for both sides, in particular the
    Confederacy.  They never recovered from that battle and the war was
    over on that day although it took another 2 years (approx) for the
    decision to be formalized.
    
    Marv
    

I was reading a profile on the director (he spent
15 years getting Gettysburg to the screen) and realized
that this is the same Ron Maxwell with whom I went to 
high school.  He was impossibly talented then, knew
it, and made sure we all knew it.  But again, you
couldn't ignore the talent.  When I was 15 and in a
production of "Oklahoma" with him, it was obvious
he would be successful in the performing arts one
day.  It's taken him longer than anyone expected (he's
47 now - even older than I am!).

His other film work includes 
	"Little Darlings" (Tatum O'Neal, Matt Dillon)
	"The Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia"
		(Dennis Quaid, Krist McNichol)
	"Parent Trap II" (Hayley Mills)
	"Verna: USO Girl" (Wm. Hurt, Sissy Spacek)

I haven't seen the first three, but the last one was
does for WNET/PBS, as was quite wonderful.

dcl

    In regard to Sheen's portrayal of Lee, Shelby Foote commented that his
    was suprized at how well Sheen portrayed Lee at this point in Lee's
    life. He said it was historically correct.
    
    The reason Lee ordered Pickett's charge was due to bad intelligence
    data. He thought the line was soft and a frontal assault backed up by a
    cannon barrage would soften up the enemy. Look what it did in the
    Persian Gulf War. However, Lee's men did not have the luxury of armor
    to protect them. In the movie and real life, the fence was the sticking
    point. If they had knocked down the fence, it might have helped.
    
    If you know anything about warfare at that time and watched Ken Burns'
    Civil War on PBS, you'll understand that advances in weaponry
    outdistanced military commanders ability to adjust to it. This is when
    there was widespread use of rifled gun barrels allowing bullets to go
    straighter much farther. Therefore, gun volleys became more effective.
    In addition, they still used lead bullets. When lead hit the body, it
    tended to spread out as it was exiting the body. This is why so many
    men lost limbs. I don't know how soon after the Civil War this
    happened, but this is one of the reasons that steel-jacketed bullets
    were adopted. They hit the body and passed thru it without ripping the
    body apart. You incapacitated your enemy with a wound, but in the
    ultimate irony of war, this was considered more "humane".

Great movie!  The music sucked, however.  It was too loud and too contrived, and
I thought it detracted from many of the scenes.  I'll see it again, however, when
I get the chance.

/Mike

    	I finally got to see it the other night, and it sure runs long, but
    it is definitely worth it.  In particular, it will suffer in
    translation to small suburban theaters (I saw it at the Charles in
    Boston) and to TV, so see it on the big screen if you get the chance.

    	Having become a minor civil war buff recently, I appreciated this
    movie in adding life to the reading, maps, and pictures that are
    usually what you get to re-create history.  The limitation of the movie
    was in sheer numbers; in reality, Pickett's Charge (why is it named
    after him when he was only the commander of part of it?) was truly
    impressive and frightening, something that couldn't be depicted by a
    few hundred actors no matter how creative the camera work (which was
    indeed creative).  That's why the battle of Little Round Top was so
    much more realistic, since it contained probably an accurate number of
    participants.  It also better showed the idealism and heroism of both
    armies as expressed by individuals, as well as portraying a true
    military genius and leader.  I also think the movie did a good job of
    showing how important small groups (like Buford's and Chamberlin's)
    could be in determining the outcome of a great battle.

    	One other thing that I noticed:  There was a lot of the Southern
    command in general and Lee in particular, but very little of the
    Northern command and Meade.  Most historians give Meade major credit
    for the victory at Gettysburg, faulting him somewhat for not pursuing
    Lee afterwards.  

    	Go see it, but don't plan to be well-rested the next day.  :-)

    		David

    
    I agree with the previous reply. This film is well worth seeing.
    
    There are sections in the movie however where the camera work did
    indeed get creative. I believe the Confederate cannon barrage before
    the final assault (Picketts Charge) was the same sequence of cannons
    firing, but filmed from different angles. It was also difficult to 
    simulate the incredible amount of soldiers that made Picketts Charge
    (15000 I seem to recall) with only 5000 re-enactors.
    
    Did anyone notice the exhaust trail from a commercial jet early in
    the film when the union cavalry are coming into Gettysburg?
    
    Overall, quite a fine effort. I recommend reading "The Killer Angels";
    the film was quite true to the novel.
    

    And for you car bound people, try to get a copy of the UNadbridged
    cassette version of the book for those long drives...

    re .19, my friend that saw the movie with me said that he noticed the
    jet trail in the sky, but I didn't notice it.  He, also, said that he
    thought he saw a car or truck driving in the distance behind some
    trees.  I didn't notice that either.
    
    Lorna
    

    re. .21
    
    At one point in the film, I think it was right before Picketts charge
    started, I thought I noticed a car or truck moving in the distance,
    but as I watched it move I realized it was a couple of flags being
    carried by soldiers on horses.

    Is this still out?  My buddies and I were going to see it and could not
    find it anywhere in Cincinnati?
    
    Have they "brought it in"?
    
    Chip

RE .23 - Well, "Gettysburg" is supposed to be coming to the Wilton Town Hall
Theatre in Wilton, NH soon (next week?), but that doesn't help you much if
you're in Cincinnati... :-)

						-- Nina

    
    Re .24  There will be a slight delay in getting Gettysburg into
    	    Wilton...  Dennis is "negotiating" with the distributor
    	    for a print that's high enough quality to be worth
    	    showing.  Apparently they were quite willing to palm
    	    off a badly worn copy.  In the meantime, "Shortcuts"
    	    is held over, and "A Dangerous Woman" is starting today.
    
    Ron

RE .25 -- Thanks for that info.  I was wondering what was happening...!

					-- Nina

    I was in Blockbuster last weekend. On their list of coming videos was
    Gettysburg. I believe the date of release will be 3/16.
    
    

	Last week I took my son and his friend (both 9-year-olds) to see 
"Gettysburg."  I gave them the option of leaving after the first half, and 
for the first hour or more they had trouble identifying Union from 
Confederate and other basics.  (The person in front of us had to ask me 
to pipe down while I was answering their questions.)  But once the Battle 
of Little Round Top got underway, they were hooked, and we stayed for the 
whole thing.  They seem to have got a lot out of it, too.  I didn't mind 
seeing it for the second time, either.

	$4 for the weekday matinee at the West Newton (MA) Cinema, the only 
place still showing it.

		David

    In regard to the video, does anyone have a source which can tell us
    whether it will be the theatrical version or an extended version? I've
    heard rumors that there was a lot left on the floor just to get it to
    where it is now...

    It is the four hour version with letterbox.  (I have it now)

    I love it.  My wife is pretty bored by it, as she doesn't understand
    the significance of the battles, of what Bufford and Chamberlain did,
    and how it shaped the war...

    We couldn't get it last weekend and made the huge mistake of renting
    The North and South.  It was a mini-series.

    We sat through that entire dog, like idiots.  You really never
    understand the meaning of "padding" and "gratuitous sex" and horribly
    contrived events until you watch a mini-series sans commercials.

    Any idea where this can be bought? I asked at Suncoast Video and was
    told that it was only made available to rental outlets.
    
    If it is available, how much does it cost?
    
    -- Bill

    When they come out they are usually available to purchase, but some
    movies come out with a "release for Rental" price, usually $100 or
    more...they drop after about 6 months to the $20+ range....If you are
    insistant on having it you can probably order it from Suncoast, or the
    company that puts it out, or after about a month you might find a video
    store who bought 10 or so copies who might be willing to part with one
    for $30 or less....
    
    Just my experience....
    
    Michael
    

    I surprised this came out in vid before the actual (longer) mini-series
    hits the Television...

    Will there definitely be a longer TV version? If so, how much 
    longer (factoring out commercials)?
    
    -- Bill

    I heard the time went from nearly 4 hours to closer to 6 hours...

    I thought the movie was great.  My wife was pretty bored.  It seemed
    that the battle scenes were too long for her and the acting was too
    short.  

    I would suggest that anyone that sees the movie first read "The Killer
    Angels".  Reading the book helped me see what I was watching.

    Regards,

    Chip

It's on TNT this week.  There was a detailed 4-color supplement in Sunday's 
paper, giving brief descriptions of the main characters with some simple 
maps.  Each part of the movie will be shown several times.

		David

    	There is one major reason I loved "Gettysburg" the movie.  My
    cousin, Johnny Fenton, was in it.  He was one of the many reinactors
    who spent weeks filming the movie in Gettysburg, PA.
    	Johnny even got a chance to meet Martin Sheen.  Mr. Sheen was
    amazed at how he was treated just like a General during the
    reinactments.  He even purchased more than a few kegs for everyone who
    stayed a extra week for re-shoots.
    	I think it's great that I know a movie star, even if he's my
    cousin.