Prev: Re: Combat films Next: Re: Mission to Mars

Re: Combat films

From: "Brian Bilderback" <bbilderback@h...>
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 20:17:55 PST
Subject: Re: Combat films

Loved Gettysburg, Loved Killer angels even more.  But I've since been 
disavowed of many of my own misconceptions about the battle that I
gained 
from that book. (Being a Civil War rookie and all).  However, I think
that, 
like SPR, the great thing about this movie is not it's historical or 
technical accuracy or inaccuracy, it's the portrayal of the humans
involved 
in the events that stay with me, nt the events themselves. (Although I
felt 
Shaara was a tad too harsh on Lee, especially on the personal level.)

Brian B

----Original Message Follows----
From: Allan Goodall <agoodall@interlog.com>
Reply-To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
To: gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Subject: Re: Combat films
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 2000 15:55:43 -0500

"Gettysburg" wasn't bad, but it wasn't about the battle, it was a
retelling 
of
Schaara's "The Killer Angels". Now, "The Killer Angels" is a fine book,
but
historically it perpetuates some aspects of the battle that have since
been
denounced. It doesn't talk much at ALL about the battle on the Union
right,
and when it does it blames Ewell (I've been on Culp's Hill... I don't
think
Ewell could have dislodged the 11th Corps after it dug in on the first
day).
It doesn't blame Longstreet enough, by any means. And it also misses the

whole
travesty that was Dan Sickles on the Union left.

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Prev: Re: Combat films Next: Re: Mission to Mars