Glory captures the heroism of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw andthe first black regiment in the Civil War, the Massachusetts"Fighting" Fifty-fourth. An extremely talented cast and crewearned three Academy Awards (cinematography, sound and supportingactor) and five nominations for their work in Glory. Theoutstanding cinematography, sound, score and acting recreate theevents leading up to the Union attack on Fort Wagner on July 18th1863. Matthew Broderick portrays the young Bostonian abolitionistCol. Robert G. Shaw who takes command of the Fifty-fourth,following the Emancipation Proclamation. Shaw along with CabotForbes (Cary Elwes) leads a band of ex slaves, servants and otherblack volunteers including a rebellious runaway slave Trip(Denzel Washington), Shaw's educated childhood friend ThomasSearles (Andre Braugher), and a former grave digger Rawlins(Morgan Freeman). Together these men face the adversity of aracist Union Army, struggling to prove themselves worthy of theirgovernment issued blue uniforms. After months of training and exploitation for physicallabor, the Fifty-fourth gains the opportunity to fight in anattack on Fort Wagner on the beaches of South Carolina. Poisedto dispel the belief that blacks would not be disciplined underfire, the Fifty-fourth leads the almost suicidal attack on Ft.Wagner. There Col. Shaw valiantly falls and the Fifty-fourth,suffering great losses, displayed the courage that persuaded theUnion to enlist many more black soldiers. Matthew Broderick delivers a noteworthy performance in therole of Col. Shaw, which Leonard Maltin calls his most ambitiouspart. In an interview for the New York Times, Broderick spoke ofhis method acting, "The first step [in preparing for the role of Robert GouldShaw in Glory] was to try to learn as much as I could about thereal person. That was mostly from letters, photographs,descriptions and a poem by Emerson. The thing I had to do wasbring myself into that situation. I didn't want to be animitation of what I thought Shaw must have been like." Broderick's acting talent has been noted on Broadway as well asin films. Broderick won a Tony Award for his performance in"Brighton Beach Memoirs" in 1983, a year after his film debut inMax Dugan Returns. (Maltin, 102) But it was his role as acomputer hacker in War Games and his role as a handsome youngteen touring Chicago in Ferris Bueller's Day Off that alertedmoviegoers to his talent. Denzel Washington has received critical acclaim for his roleas Trip (as well as an Oscar for Best Supporting Actor). Denzel commented on the role of Trip in an interview with the NewYork Times. "Trip's an instigator - wild, rebellious, angry. He's aproduct of racism who's become a racist. He hates all whitepeople, Confederates most of all. But in the end, when he seesthe white officers make the maximum sacrifice, he's the mostpatriotic one in the bunch." Director of Glory, Edward Zwick described Washington by stating,"Whatever that mysterious chemical process is that makes thecamera love someone, he has more of it than any one personshould."(Maltin, 921) It is that presence that earned him anOscar for Glory and nominations for his roles in Cry Freedom andMalcolm X. Equally as important as acting to the impact of the movieGlory is the Musical score composed by James Horner. In thefinal battle scene in Glory, Horner chose the Boys Choir ofHarlem which creates a moving effect during the death of Col.Robert Shaw.(Magill, 158) Horner won a Grammy Award for thescore for Glory. He was nominated the same year for an AcademyAward for the score for Field of Dreams. Horner's previousGrammy Awards include song of the year and best song written fora motion picture or television, all for "Somewhere Out There"from An American Tale in 1987. (CTFT, 228) Leonard Maltin callsHorner one of today's most prolific film composer's. Hornercomposed thirty one motion picture scores from 1979 to 1989.(Maltin, 411) There are many elements that contribute to the success of afilm. Glory combines the best cinematography, sound, score, andacting to create a moving representation of this portion of U. S.history. Roger Ebert called it a "strong and valuable film." In his review written for the Chicago Sun-Times, Ebert notes theamount of effort devoted to accurate period detail. One of Ebert's criticisms of Glory is that the perspectiveof the movie is constantly seen from one view, that of the whiteofficer. Ebert points out that a white man is cast as the leadrole when the movie is essentially about a black experience. Glory could have been told from the eyes of a black soldier inthe Fifty-fourth. Ebert makes a valid assumption when he suggestthat a totally different film could be made from the samematerial. Indeed Glory is a story of how the freed blacks were able toprove themselves in battle. The Fifty- fourth regiment couldalso be considered one of the first times we see blacks look forequal opportunity. Ebert notes the scene when the black soldiersof the Fifty-fourth learn they will not be paid the regular(white) wage. "Blacks march as far, bleed as much and die assoon, they argue."(Ebert) It would be 100 years later that theygained equal opportunity when in Vietnam both black and whitesoldiers were interspersed in the military. While Roger Ebertdiscusses the idea of a different point of view he notes thatGlory is an important film no matter who's eyes it is seen from. Blake Lukas on the other hand is far more critical of thefilm. In Lukas' review for Magill's Cinema Annual he picks atelements of the film, including weak characterization anddirecting that leaves something to be desired. Lukas seems attimes to be lost in his own rhetoric when he writes about thedismal war genre. He delves into the number of Vietnam filmsthat are "a far more popular subject in this period."(Magill,155) After a brief synopsis of the film Lukas comments on thedynamics of the protagonist character who we see mature throughthe film. The remaining characters Lukas believes lackdimension. He calls the role of Cabot Forbes "fleetinglyinteresting" and the role of Trip, (which Denzel Washington wonBest Supporting Actor for) "predictable." He goes on further tosay that the role of Rawlins portrayed by Morgan Freeman is onlyenlightened by this "brilliant actor's own characteristicintelligence." Therefore without the phenomenal acting talentpresented in Glory Lukas feels the movie would be flat. In addition to finding flaw in the characterization Lukascompares director Edward Zwick to the director John Ford. Forddirected earlier Civil War films such as The Horse Soldiers(1959)or Sergeant Rutledge (1960)which based on the an all blackcalvary regiment in the Civil War. Lukas suggest that Ford wasable to attain a "thematic richness" that alluded Zwick. Lukasalso remarks that Zwick used ineffective "emphasis on close upsand shallow focus which do little to make the film's historicalmoment seem alive in spite of admirable attention to detail inthe art direction sets and costumes." Lukas is impressed however by Zwick's direction of the finalscene in which he uses "vigorous tracking shots " to create a"stunning effect." Lukas also comments on the James's Horner'sinventive use of the Boy's Choir of Harlem. Lukas suggest thatZwick looked to appeal to contemporary audiences. Interestinglyenough Lukas is surprised that Glory met with such "critical andcommercial success." I was surprised to read the review written by Blake Lukaswhere he constantly compares Zwick to a former director of CivilWar films John Ford, and when he persist in mentioning the dismalnature of most war films. Lukas states that "Glory offers anidealism and sense of heroism that contrast powerfully to thespectacle of bloodshed and war's waste of life that it alsovisualizes." Lukas seems hung up on the waste of life that isportrayed in war film's. In my opinion Glory was not a movieabout whether or not we as a nation should participate in wars. It was about the progress of the black race and the fierce battlethey had to fight a long the way to attain each rung on theladder of freedom. Lukas criticism seems out of place when hewrites about Vietnam and the "American soldier's potential forbarbarism." Lukas also seems hung up on the past. he makes two commentswhich seem out of place. First when comparing Zwick to Ford hestates that Zwick does not attempt the same "thematic richness"and that "(Zwick's) sensibilities are more attuned with theresponses of the 1989 audiences." I don't think Zwick should befaulted for creating a film that is appealing to contemporaryaudiences." I certainly would not go see a film directed byLukas. Desson Howe reviewing Glory for the Washington Post likeLukas notes that the scriptwriter Jarre (who's credits includeRambo: First Blood Part II) provides only a superficialcharacterization "his script is made better by the performers."Howe believes that the is too much "liberal eyed giddiness(thanks chiefly to the gushy, rhapsodizing score by JamesHorner)." Both Ebert and Lukas acclaim Broderick's performance of Shaw,yet Howe criticizes it writing, "In this movie he is an amiablenon-presence, creating unintentionally the notion that he Fifty-fourth earned its stripes despite wimpy leadership." Thiscomment lead me to wonder whether Howe and I saw the same movie. Howe notes that the performance of Denzel Washington, and MorganFreeman uplift the film. Perhaps the reviewers did not have the luxury of time toresearch the history of Robert Gould Shaw or the Fifty-fourth. If so they would have found that Shaw was indeed a youthfulofficer given charge of the Fifty-Fourth as Colonel at the age of26. Understanding Shaw philosophical views as an abolitionistand the societal views of blacks being subservient to whites,certainly a young man leading the first black regiment wouldexperience a certain degree of self doubt and contradiction. Inthe end Shaw develops the courage to lead his men into battle toa symbolic triumph displaying the bravery of these blacksoldiers. Broderick's portrayal of Shaw is credible from mypoint of view. The credibility of Glory is heighten by the amount of effortdevoted to recreating the historical details. From the camps tothe costumes Glory captures the aura of battle. Most of thecritics agree that the historical detail was a redeeming elementof the film. Glory is a film that balances it shortcomings out withexceptional talent. Perhaps a lack of dimension in thecharacters is balanced with outstanding performances. Any faultsin the directing are made up by the detail put in to the film andthe superior sound and score. Glory is a carefully constructedfilm with a didactic theme. It is an accurate representation ofthe lives of Civil War soldiers. The climax of the movie is fairly accurately represented. The Fifty-fourth regiment had slightly over five hundred memberswhen they marched into battle on July 18th, 1863. Over twohundred and fifty members of the regiment died in that battle andseveral more were injured. That is what proved to the whiteregiments looking on that the black soldiers were worthy ofbattle. Glory captures that triumph. BibliographyContemporary Theatre, Film and Television. Detroit: GaleResearch, Volume 10Ebert, Roger. The Chicago Sun-Times, January 12, 1990Howe, Desson. The Washington Post, January 12, 1990Lukas, Blake. Magill's Cinema Annual 1990, Englewood Cliffs,N.J.: Salem Press, 1990Maltin, Leonard. Leonard Maltin's Movie Encyclopedia, ThePenguin Publishing Company, New York, NY 1994. All I ever needed to know about Glory, I learned in AMCV 192. Stephanie Beck April 9, 1997 Prof. Deutch . that earned him anOscar for Glory and nominations for his roles in Cry Freedom andMalcolm X. Equally as important as acting to the impact of the movieGlory. the death of Col.Robert Shaw.(Magill, 158) Horner won a Grammy Award for thescore for Glory. He was nominated the same year for an AcademyAward for the