DVD Talk Forum

DVD Talk Forum (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/)
-   Movie Talk (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk-17/)
-   -   Historical inaccuracy in "Glory" (https://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/296137-historical-inaccuracy-glory.html)

blinkin_winkin 06-01-03 02:10 PM

Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 
Hey everyone,

I'm doing a paper on the historical inaccuracies in the movie "Glory". I've found a lot myself but I was wondering if anyone could point out a few.

I've read a few that point out that the 54th was made up of free slaves, and not the runaway slaves the film portrays. Also, I've read that the Union troops did not make it over the wall of Ft. Wagner.

Any help would be great. Thanks.

Aaron

Buck Turgidson 06-01-03 11:01 PM

Not everybody in the movie version of the 54th was a runaway. The Andre Braugher character was a free man.

Those are some very slight inaccuracies you list there, if you ask me.

Robert 06-01-03 11:53 PM

http://us.imdb.com/Goofs?0097441

HistoryProf 06-02-03 01:13 AM

to be perfectly honest, i don't think there's much of a paper to write on this subject....the film is remarkably faithful to the real 54th and what became of them. There's no way to know specifically if certain things actually happened to actual people, but by and large, they have everything right. They were withheld arms for a long time because while the North could argue slaves should be freed, giving blacks a gun was a whole different issue. they got the scraps in terms of supplies, and were derided my many white officers and regulars.

In short, you are looking for innacuracies in what is honestly one of the most historically accurate films in history. There are assuredly little tidbits and nitpicky things that could be pointed out, but overall the film does a magnificent job of portraying their story.

A question, did you pick this film for a general assignment or was this particular question assigned for the whole class? I ask only because I would wonder about a prof that would pick on this movie as an example of historical inaccuracies in film...there are plenty of bad examples to be picked apart out there, and this isn't one of them.

Mazinger 06-02-03 07:43 AM

Pick a movie like "Braveheart" and you won't have a problem writing a paper about it.:D


I do agree with the previous post. There won't be too much to write about with "Glory".

Numanoid 06-02-03 08:03 AM

Pick 2001: A Space Odyssey. That thing is replete with inaccuracies. :D

Groucho 06-02-03 08:07 AM

I'm sure if you sat down with a civil war expert, he'd come up with things like "That button's not right" or "He's holding his rifle slightly incorrectly." Fasinating stuff.

FantasticVSDoom 06-02-03 11:14 AM

Plus in the movie at the ending credits, they said they never took the Ft..

blinkin_winkin 06-02-03 09:13 PM

Guys... there are a TON of inaccuracies. Yes it might be one of the most accuracte historical films but that isn't good enough.

How about them attacking Wagner from the wrong side?

How about them saying that over half of the 54th died when actually only 42% died?

How about at the end the bodies only being picked off their shoes and nothing else?

Maybe I'm researching too much.

Aaron

Creek Rat 06-02-03 09:41 PM


Originally posted by blinkin_winkin
Maybe I'm researching too much. Aaron
Hmm...I'd say you are trying a little to hard unless you picked this film for social/political reasons. There are dozens of truely historically inacurate film out there for you to nit-pick apart; I can think of several Civil War films right off the top of my head.

jaeufraser 06-02-03 10:22 PM

These are little nitpicks. Really, any movie will have some inaccuracies to portray their stories. But if it is small nitpicky things, then how can you write a paper? What's the point besides compiling a list? Where's the thesis? If the movie portrays the spirit and overall driving themes of the real life events, the fact that the movie states 52% died when 42% is correct means very little. Sure, you could dissect this movie for its problems, but in the end...what's the point if it doesn't have much of an effect? Sounds like a really tough paper to write unless you're allowed to make a list.

jfoobar 06-03-03 01:36 AM


Originally posted by blinkin_winkin
How about them attacking Wagner from the wrong side?

Yeah, I noticed that a few years later when I was in Charleston and wanted to go to Battery Wagner to see what was left of it. Unfortunately, nothing is left of it since it was mostly constructed of sand and wood, along with its sister battery across the harbor. There is just a dot on the historical maps where it once stood.

Still, Glory would seem to be a film without too much in the way of major inaccuracies. To write a paper on it, you will have to mostly nitpick. To that end, I stronly suggest you seek help on Civil War message boards, not movie-related message boards.

Big Boy Laroux 06-03-03 09:21 AM

interesting, i actually wrote a paper on this in college for a film class!

it's been awhile, but i believe a huge inaccuracy is the whipping scene when denzel runs away. while very moving, it actually would not have happened. man, i wish i still had that paper, and my sources.

i actually had book sources, but I found this link...

Discussion on Glory

people here mention some books you may want to take a look at.

Michael T Hudson 06-03-03 10:09 AM

I think you should do a paper on Pearl Harbor. ;)

blinkin_winkin 06-03-03 09:30 PM


Originally posted by BigDaddy
I think you should do a paper on Pearl Harbor. ;)
lol

I wish I could. But no... my teacher gave us pretty leniant instructions. Just watch "Glory" and write a paper about it using 15 sources. I wanted to do historical inaccuracy because it sounded like fun.

I'm almost finished with the paper. 10 sources so far! :)

This question was probably better served at a civil war message board though. Sorry everybody.

Aaron

hmurchison 06-04-03 09:00 AM

No Aaron it's fine on this board. Movies loves are also History Lover at times. Let us know when you get to 15 it'll be interesting.

study_girl 01-14-09 11:51 PM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 
Inaccuracies: Shaw would have never whipped one of the soldiers, usual punishment for deserters was most often death.
Robert wouldn't have whipped them because it symbolized slavery, an institution they were trying to destroy.

Dr Mabuse 01-15-09 12:08 AM

Re: Another 'out of the blue' oddly specific first post by a new poster
 
Welcome to the forums.

You are correct in that they didn't whip or flog people as a rule. I would say you are right that the scene was a dramatization and not historically accurate. But that scene won Denzel the Oscar I think, so I'm damn glad they did the scene that way.

The practice of flogging had been outlawed for years before the war. It wasn't some 'moral high ground' choice because of slavery.


Originally Posted by Historical Times Encyclopedia of the Civil War
Discipline in the Civil War Armies

The Articles of War and civil laws covering military discipline were written and enacted before the Civil War to govern a small, self-contained professional military service. The military maintained order with a caste system and disciplined with shame and pain. With the mustering of great armies and navies, this way of life was revealed to vast numbers of civilian volunteers for the first time. Trouble resulted.

The Union and Confederate armies were led by small cadres of professionals who found that the war they were to fight required the coordinated movement of enormous bodies of men. The drill discipline this required was to be supplied by manuals such as Hardee' Tactics and the vigorous efforts of noncommissioned and junior officers. But many of these were friends or relatives of the men in the hometown companies in which they served. The local origin and makeup of most volunteer units had a poor effect on discipline; the men had elected their leaders, so volunteer officers were often wary of being strict with their troops. Early in the war this necessitated the removal or transfer of many volunteer officers, and in a few cases, the punishment of entire regiments.

Nor was the independent nature of volunteers and old loyalties easily overcome by discipline from Regular officers. Confederate Brig. Gen. Charles S. Winder had been an officer in the antebellum U.S. Army and was an officer in the Confederate army, leading 5 volunteer regiments. During the Second Bull Run Campaign he had 30 men from his brigade bucked and gagged at one time for straggling on the march. They took the corporal punishment badly: half of them deserted that night, the rest "swore Winder's next battle would be his last.,, They never had a chance to carry out their threat: Federals killed Winder during the next battle.

Mutiny and threats of murder were not usual discipline problems. Straggling, drunkenness, fighting, dereliction of duty, theft, desertion, malingering, cowardice, bounty jumping, and insubordination were the common fare at courts-martial. Both Union and Confederate services made provisions for military courts and prescribed specific punishments for some offenses. But often, because of pressures of time, courts were not called in noncapital cases and commanding officers dispensed justice on the spot with some form of minor or corporal punishment. These included the Buck and Gag, walking guard duty carrying a heavy log instead of a rifle, being tied up by the thumbs, riding the "wooden mule" (a soldier was forced to sit for hours atop a narrow rail set high enough so his feet did not touch the ground), extra duty, fines, time in the guardhouse, and reduction in rank.

Cowardice, desertion, theft, sleeping on guard duty, treating with the enemy, spying, murder, and bounty jumping brought the hardest punishments. Execution by firing squad or hanging could be applied to all of these, but frequently cowards, thieves, and some deserters were branded (either on the face or the hip) and drummed out of camp in disgrace. In the artillery or cavalry, being tied for hours spread-eagled on a gun carriage wheel was common, and sometimes, when the culprit was hung horizontally, crippling. In both the army and navy, flogging had been outlawed several years before the war.

The hardest punishments could only be ordered by a court martial (a select board of 3 or more officers), and in the case of a decision for execution, its vote had to show a 2-to-I majority in agreement. Only the commanding general ordering the court or the U.S. or C.S. president could award a pardon.

At sea, limits of space and personnel prohibited some of the more curious corporal punishments and full court-martial boards. the ship's captain dispensed justice in the forms Of fines, extra duty, time in the brig, confinement in single or double irons, confinement on bread and water, solitary confinement, or reduction in rank.

Officers could be, and frequently were, arrested and tried for any number of offenses, but most often their punishments amounted to fines, confinement to quarters, or assignment to an undesirable command. In those instances where a field officer was convicted of cowardice, his fate was nearly as ugly as an enlisted man's: he was publicly "read out of the army, his sword broken, his buttons stripped from his uniform; then, he was drummed out of camp, often with a sign around his neck that read "Coward." Usually, in cases involving high disgrace, officers were expected to resign.

Combat discipline was imposed with force, in land assaults "file closers" with bayoneted rifles kept men in line and moving forward. Officers of the provost marshal waited in the rear to seize unwounded men leaving the field. At sea, marines kept shipboard peace and, if ordered to, kept men at their battle stations.

In the postwar years, amendments to service and enlistment regulations and revisions in the code of military justice were prompted by the disciplinary difficulties during the Civil War, and the bulk of the code was rewritten.


My Other Self 01-15-09 12:19 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

Originally Posted by study_girl (Post 9199400)
Inaccuracies: Shaw would have never whipped one of the soldiers, usual punishment for deserters was most often death.
Robert wouldn't have whipped them because it symbolized slavery, an institution they were trying to destroy.

Apparently you failed to recognize that the OP posted this nearly 6 years ago...

And how does someone join in a message board, and search for a question on historical inaccuracies in Glory? That's hilarious.

DeanoBKN 01-15-09 01:04 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 
Tell me about it. I was about to post until I read your comment mcfly. Serves me right for not looking at the post date. This is happening more and more these days...

Dr Mabuse 01-15-09 05:36 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

Originally Posted by mcfly (Post 9199441)
And how does someone join in a message board, and search for a question on historical inaccuracies in Glory? That's hilarious.

I think it works the other way around.

Doing a specific google search brings up a thread.

Person joins to respond.

Then comes the 'out of the blue', oddly specific, way old thread bump first post.

MScottM 01-15-09 08:30 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

Originally Posted by blinkin_winkin (Post 3701388)
Hey everyone,

I'm doing a paper on the historical inaccuracies in the movie "Glory". I've found a lot myself but I was wondering if anyone could point out a few.

I've read a few that point out that the 54th was made up of free slaves, and not the runaway slaves the film portrays. Also, I've read that the Union troops did not make it over the wall of Ft. Wagner.

Any help would be great. Thanks.

Aaron

Personally I am suprised no one pointed out this inaccuracy. What the hell is a free slave anyway?

Pointyskull 01-15-09 08:44 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

Originally Posted by MScottM (Post 9199742)
What the hell is a free slave anyway?

That's a slave you receive free with the purchase of any equal or larger slave.

arminius 01-15-09 08:45 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

Originally Posted by MScottM (Post 9199742)
Personally I am suprised no one pointed out this inaccuracy. What the hell is a free slave anyway?

Thats the one you get in the BOGO sales.

nemein 01-15-09 08:47 AM

Re: Historical inaccuracy in "Glory"
 

What the hell is a free slave anyway?
People who were formerly slaves but their master relinquished "ownership". Seems pretty obvious to me...


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.