Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.

Currently locked by:
Lock expires at: 2025/08/26 16:52 (15 min)

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

Compare to most of the other films we have seen in this class, //Glory// works as a better example of a secondary source. As with any historical film, it must be used with the company of other sources in order to gain a full perspective on the subject matter, but like the movie //Amistad//, it does a great job in visually representing a subject matter that isn't taught or discussed in most classrooms. While there had been other African American military units, the 54th Massachusetts Regiment was the first to be widely publicized, and the film does an exceptional job in representing its importance. The film also does a great job in portraying the reactions to the African American regiment, from the support of the abolitionists to the opposition of others. Its portrayal of certain characters, such as Shaw, are mostly accurate. Smaller pieces like he war scenes, clothing, and weapons seemed accurate. Overall, the film works fairly well as a visual representation of historical subject matter.

Knighton, Andrew. “What the Film Glory Got Right About the American Civil War and What It Did Not,” May 10, 2017. https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/what-the-film-glory-got-right-about-the-american-civil-war-and-what-it-did-not.html. -- Jordan Petty

//Glory// is one of the better films that we've talked about and seen in class that works as a secondary source for the subject matter. This film is seen as one of the best known depictions of the American Civil War and the story of the 54th Massachussets Regiment being the first all African American regiment. The 54th Regiment was not the first African American unit to serve the Union army but it was one of the most important due to their bravery and praised battle performance. The leader of this regiment that took on the responsibility of forming the group was Robert Shaw. The portrayal of his character throughout the film was accurate. However, throughout the film, the majority of the soldiers are all seen as former slaves when in reality, most of them were free their entire lives. The film overall depicts an accurate representation of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment that fought in the Civil War. -Lauren Simpson

This film certainly gets the history right when it comes to portraying civil war combat in its most realistic form. Rather than implying that the war is brutal and expecting us to take their word, we are shown brutal imagery and scenes of war that make it seem incredibly more believable. After Gone with the Wind's rose-colored look at the civil war as a war fought between gallant, honorable men who fought for noble causes, we are shown  brutal, honest, dirty depiction of warfare between enemies who hate each other, and want to kill each other at all cost. While there are certainly characters and actions that would have been considered inaccurate and very fictionalized (much like Last of the Mohicans was) it is refreshing to see a movie care about depicting the Civil War at least somewhat accurately. -- AJ DeGeorge

Watching this movie directly after watching GWTW is a stark difference. Although it has problems of it's own, compared to GWTW, this movie is leaps and bounds more accurate about the Civil War. Glory shows the racial hardships black soldiers had to deal with during the war, and although the end of the movie makes it seem like those hardships ended with the war (which they did not) at least there is somewhat accurate depiction of what that struggle to be recognized was like. --Cat Kinde

Of all the films we have seen so far this semester I believe that Glory has best shown the realities of warfare in the era it placed itself. The soldiers took to form battle lines with the front-line kneeling for those in the back to present a full volley. Furthermore, it went further to show a handful of volleys followed by a quick melee that was brutal. The initial battle in which Shaw is presented is strong as it presents many examples that conform to actual battles with wounded stumbling off the field long after its conclusion. Some of the film’s events are pulled from the historical record with the protest over the issues of pay and Shaw’s decision to refuse pay with his regiment. Another event was the burning of Darien in which Shaw witnessed brutality and violence that did not sit well with him under the order of Montgomery over the difference in tactics of war. The finale of the film with the Fort Wagner pulled from various records as it showed the realities of death faced by the regiment, the death and ultimate disrespect by the Confederates of Colonel Shaw, and the lack of sleep by which the regiment had endured in arriving at Fort Wagner. The use of the film as a secondary source despite all its adherences to the historical record is something I could not fully support. It lightens many of the racist views of the time and while it follows Shaw for a decent amount of the film it still does not include enough for a strong understanding of the colonel. To begin diving into the subject of the 54th Massachusetts and colonel Shaw it is a strong source but lacks enough to be useful as a source. -Robert Keitz

Glory would be a very good secondary source to be used along with primary documents. I think that the way the movie portrays the war, the 54th regiment, and their experiences paralleled to all-white regiments is fairly accurate. I think that it also does a good job of displaying the racism that the men endured and in the end their work to prove themselves worthy and capable of fighting in the war. The movie also shows the emotional aspects that came along with not only fighting in a war, but dealing with racism for such a long time, and the courage it took to keep working to prove themselves, in a place that did not value them. --Mariah Morton

Glory is a good secondary source for the American Civil War. In fact, a website club War History Online describes it as “one of the best-known screen depictions of the American Civil War.” It gets many things right about the Civil War and the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. One of the major things it gets right is the depiction of Robert Gould Shaw, the unit's first commander. Additionally, it depicts his background as a privileged son of New Englanders who were abolitionists. Additionally, the film shows how he received the command after the Battle of Antietam, establishing an accurate timeline for the creation of the 54th Infantry. The film depicts how Shaw and his men boycott being paid because they were not being paid their promised amount. Additionally, it shows how he died at Fort Wagner fighting with his men. (https://www.warhistoryonline.com/american-civil-war/what-the-film-glory-got-right-about-the-american-civil-war-and-what-it-did-not.html)

Another reason why this makes a good secondary source is that there was no made-up romance to “enhance” this story. The director could have easily done this by incorporating Robert Gould Shaw’s wife whom he married in 1863, which is within the timeline of this movie. However, he doesn't, which goes to show that a film about history does NOT need a romance to be entertaining or interesting. -Megan Williams

Using this film as a secondary source to learn about the black regiments in the war, and even specifically the 54th regiment would not be a bad thing. This movie does a good job of showing the hard things about the lives of these men and portraying the feelings and events that transpired. I think especially if paired with primary sources such as Shaw's letters, this would make a good source base for the 54th regiment and for the battle at the fort. In my opinion the director did a good job of only taking creative liberties where it was absolutely necessary due to filming technique or time constraints, he did not add any romances, and though he added some nonexistent characters and had some things that did not match with the times, most of the events lined up with each other according to the actual timeline.

I can hardly think of a film that portrays a more poignant interpretation of war, even beyond it's well-known brutal combat scenes. It manages to steer away from portraying the many who died in the conflict as mere numbers in a sea of amassed blood. Rather, the soldiers -though fictional- are first individuals with personalities, stories, and lives. They are only secondarily portrayed as instruments of enacting history with muskets. Each soldier who fell at for wager felt pain, engaged in comradery, While we are often quick to portray ourselves as objective researchers relying on reason, Glory reminds us that emotion matters- it can take us closer to understanding what we those who have not experienced it can never understand: the personal nature of war. -Ethan

This is one of the best secondary source movies I've seen. It's a really good representation of both race relations in the Union Army, and the Civil War itself. There is no romanticized depiction of the feelings blacks had towards whites of the time, instead we get several different examples. Some black men and white men are friends, some start off hating each other before becoming friends, some never reach the level of friend but still gain respect for each other, some still hate each other at the end. There is also no romanticization of war. We see people being blow up by cannon fire, we see PTSD through Shaw, we see both reluctance to fight and people who are extremely eager. -Madison Roberts

I thought this movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy. I watched the movie before doing the readings and I was pleasantly surprised to find in the readings that the ripping up the checks part was something that really took place. I was skeptical to see the officers join their men in that part, so to read that Captain Heasly did that and stood by his soldiers was refreshing. Also, I appreciated that the viewer got to see the ugly as well, when one of the officers was talking about how the Irish were very racist towards the African American men it added to the historical context as the New York Draft riots had recently occurred where Irish men attacked black men out of fear of losing their jobs and this tension was very prevalent during that era.   -Helen Dhue

Compared to all of the other movies we've seen, I think this is one of the best films to serve as a secondary source for the Civil War. It portrayed the brutality of the war without watering it down or glossing over the ideology of it like //Gone with the Wind// did. The combat scenes were very powerful in portraying how chaotic and bloody the war was, and how tactics had not modernized to respond to more accurate and effective weaponry. The film showed the racism and discrimination these soldiers faced serving in the 54th, even at the end without too much of a "but it got better" look that //The Patriot// continually attempted to do. It showed a wider variety of backgrounds, education levels, and attitudes of the black soldiers, though we still only really see the stories of a few of them. The film did not seem to combat the sources that we learned about and my own knowledge of the Civil War, and I liked how they integrated Shaw's letters into the film itself and announced to the viewer that it was a major source and how they had access to them despite Shaw's death.  It definitely could serve as an effective source to introduce the Civil War and discuss important narratives of people often overlooked in this war like the 54th. 
-Ashley Dimino
 
====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

While the film does do a decent job in portraying the events of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, it is not entirely accurate, as is the case with any historical figure. The most obvious error is the use of fictional characters, such as Trip, John Rawlins, Private Sharts, and Thomas Searles. While these characters did not actually exist, it's interesting to consider the fact that these //types// of individuals did exist in the time period. Trip was the angry enslaved individual who ran away, contrasting with Thomas Searles, an educated, freed African American.

Another glaring inaccuracy deals with the portrayal of the regiment itself. The film depicts the regiment as being made up of mostly runaway slaves, but was actually comprised of mostly freed individuals.

Certain scenes were also in conflict with the timeline of what actually happened. One example of this is the scene when Trip is flogged for deserting the camp. Flogging had been outlawed by the U.S. Army two years before the formation of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment.

“This Day in the Law.” LegalFlip.com. Accessed October 6, 2020. http://www.legalflip.com/ThisDayInTheLaw.aspx?id=225. -- Jordan Petty

This week’s movie, Glory, starts the conversation of how African American slaves and freedmen were treated as they joined the Union forces. This movie captures the very important factor that Union soldiers and troops were also very racist. I know we have talked about this in class, and I wanted to note the fact that a lot of people still think that the Union was anti-racist, but there were a lot of people who held that mentality. One thing this movie did get wrong regarding these relations is the lack of segregation within the camps, and troops themselves. As we know historically speaking, this would have taken place.  - Kaylee Williams

The 1989 film, //Glory//, notably won many awards for its success in historical accuracy and entertainment. Though this drama is a great film, there are a few inaccuracies in it. A big problem I noticed was the ending, where it states that the Confederate fort wasn't taken by the Union soldiers, though in history, the Union soldiers were able to take control in 1863. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/fort-wagner --Tara Scroggins

//Glory// does an amazing job with the accurate historical interpretation of the African American regiments during the Civil War, but there are a few historical inaccuracies within the film. The film shows Robert Shaw immediately accepting an invitation from the Governor to lead a regiment but does not show his hesitancy to command. In reality, he struggled to decide whether to accept the offer, initially rejecting it which turned out to be a crucial few days. The specific characters throughout the film are fictional. The real men who fought as soldiers in the regiment did not dramatize the oppression of the time period as clearly as the characters in the movie portrayed. The two sons of Frederick Douglass signed up to fight straight away with one of them becoming the regimental sergeant major. Another real individual who served in the regiment was Garth Wilkinson James who was fatally injured while serving as an adjutant during the assault on Fort Wagner. -Lauren Simpson

The film chooses to present a problem that is not drawn from the historical record concerning the initial equipment of the 54th Massachusetts. James Henry Gooding in noting his experience with the 54th mentions how they were all fully equipped. While soldiers often complained of lacking equipment and supplies, they generally do so after their initial training as the logistics of suppling the troops was a logistical nightmare. It would be rather illogical for any military force to not supply uniforms and starting gear. While Gooding does mention that their gear was not of the greatest quality, they still received what they needed so they could be professionally trained and easily identified as Union soldiers. The film cuts out the presence of Frederick Douglas’s two sons who joined the 54th. The position held by Morgan Freeman’s character was given to Douglas’s older son, but the film preferred to add Douglas to its runtime without including the contributions of his sons. -Robert Keitz

The film did a relatively good job at keeping a lot of things historical. They do add some characters that were not real however I imagine they were based on real people or at least what some of the men would have been like, and some details such as the flogging were made for dramatic effect. I also noticed the absence of big names such as the Douglass brothers, Morgan Freemans character was substituted for the oldest, meaning the director chose to not include an extra narrative.-- Kimberly Sak

While this film gets many things right about Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry there are some errors in the historical accuracy of this film. In my opinion, a major thing that this film fails to show is that this African-American unit was not the only one. There were others at this time but the film gives the impression that this was one of the only units actually trained to fit. A reason for this depiction could have been because the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry was the first widely publicized African-American unit. An additional thing I think this film does poorly in downplaying the racial prejudice against African Americans. For instance, the film neglects to mention or talk about the New York City draft riots.

Like Amistad many characters in Glory are fictional. For instance, Denzel Washington’s and Morgan Freeman’s characters are made. This goes to show this is another film that “made-up” a character for Morgan Freeman to play, which isn’t horrible but I feel as this movie could do a better job making it know which characters are real and which ones aren’t. A final thing that I think this film missed the opportunity in expanding on was Shaw’s internal conflict of whether to accept the offer of commanding a regiment. This would have been interesting to see more of his concern about leading the 54th.-Megan Williams

I did find it odd that many of the characters were made up when real people could have been used, I think it sort of takes away some of the power those characters have when a viewer goes into the history of the story. As well I found it odd that Frederick Douglass's sons were not a larger part of the story, as Frederick Douglass made his appearance at the beginning of the film. I also saw how the movie portrayed the shift in the Union's perspective of the war, although maybe it was understated I think that is something that many history lessons lack and it was interesting to see a movie try to tackle that.-Helen Dhue

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

At the end of the day, while historical, Glory is at it's heart meant to be an entertaining movie. So although it does stay true to the events of what happened at Fort Wagner, the other Union soldiers cheering the 54th regiment on as the ride into battle feels a bit over the top in regards to the relationship between black and white soldiers, especially before the attack on the fort even occurred. Even after the battle at Fort Wagner, the relationship between white and black soldiers was not as great as this makes it out to be. However, I will say the film does stay true to at least parts of the scholarly sources we read for class. James Henry Gooding's letter to President Lincoln talks about the pay difference between white and black soldiers, which we see depicted in the film, as well as the struggle to be recognized as soldiers. --Cat Kinde

After the lecture in class and reading the historical sources, the movie deviated from scholarly sources but also had some consistencies. As mentioned in the reading and in class, there was a pay difference between African American and white Union soldiers, and Col. Robert Shaw really did organize the 54th Massachusetts Regiment as a group to refuse to be paid as a sign of protesting this unfairness. The movie is also accurate in portraying the conviction many African Americans felt towards serving in the Union army, as many characters displayed in the movie regardless of their background or motivations felt incredibly strong about and took pride in serving. However, as Cat mentioned, the relationship between white and African American soldiers did not change overnight as suggested in the movie. White supremacy was still widely believed in the Union during this time in the war, and the 54th Massachusetts Regiment was spearheading the movement for respect for African American soldiers, meaning they likely didn't receive any mutual respect from their white counterparts. While this movie doe an overall good job of addressing the racism that was still rampant during this time period, it certainly didn’t change overnight as suggested in the film. -Morgan Gilbert

One of the most obvious deviations from scholarly source I saw in the movie was how the 54th was depicted as a regiment consisting of mostly runaway slaves. James Henry Gooding refutes this claim in his letter to Lincoln, referring to the regiment as free men, not contraband, who are fighting for the good of the Union and democracy. Moreover, the treatment of the soldiers seen in the movies versus what is described in historical accounts is vastly different. There is the obvious depiction of racism in many Union soldiers, but it appears to be played down. While the Union had black troops, they were not necessarily respected at first. Many Northern Whites still held onto the notion of racial supremacy, however Gooding's letter proves the African Americans are just as worthy and smart as their white counterparts. Gooding's accounts are very articulate, offering the unique perspective of an African American corporal who demonstrates just what the people of the 54th were fighting for. The fact that Gooding wrote to Lincoln shows a strength of character and reveals just how much things had changed during the course of the Civil War. The fact that an African American could write to the President of the United States and make a difference, even after his demise, is revolutionary for this time period. The movie attempted to show this acceptance and change by having Colonel Shaw rip apart his pay orders, and at the end by having the white regiments cheer on the 54th. However, these moments did not feel as genuine as they would have if Congress would have been shown making such decisions. -- Lyndsey Clark

Based on the James Henry Gooding's account, it seems like Glory may have missed the mark when portraying the burning of Darien. While I haven't read Shaw's account, Gooding's writing seemed very unfazed by the burning of the town compared to the depiction of the 54th in the film. Shaw's character in particular was very reluctant to torch the town, which may be a representation of his upper-class upbringing, but Gooding's description seemed to suggest that the 54th wasn't opposed to the burning whatsoever. - Wilson LeCount

====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

//Glory// is a great primary source for the time it was made. It was the first national film that talked about black regiments in the Civil War, which none had done before. //Glory// is a great resource for seeing the start of discussing more than just the "white man's history", as we've seen in many other films so far. In comparison to //Gone with the Wind//, this film was starkly different, as we are able to see a more accurate representation of the Civil War, rather than what southerners thought occurred. --Tara Scroggins

I think this film works really well as a primary source for the 1980s-1990s. This movie has a stacked cast: Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Cary Elwes, and Bueller himself. A cast like this makes me think that the directors were serious about making a film that portrayed the 54th Regiment as the heroic, groundbreaking idea that they were. Additionally, //Glory// won three academy awards, with one of them going to Denzel Washington for best supporting actor. So clearly it did really well with the audience of the time as well. On the other side, the film also made a point to claim that most of the black soldiers were former slaves, when in reality most of them were actually free before joining the army. This ties into that subconscious obsession with black trauma we talked about in //Amistad//. It wasn't necessary that the black soldiers in //Glory// needed to be former slaves--however it probably fit with the idea most Americans had at the time about African Americans fighting during the war. So, although not a great thing overall, it is another indicator as to the mindset of Americans in the 1980s-1990s.--Cat Kinde

I think the choice in having so many well-known actors of the time in this movie shows that the film makers really wanted people to know about this part of history. You might not have known anything about the Union side of the Civil War (especially if you've only seen Civil War movies like Gone with the Wind), but would still be drawn to the idea because you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Denzel Washington movies. I've watched plenty of movies just because I like one of the main actors, not necessarily because I was interested in the actual plot. Their use of Shaw's letters as a historical source throughout I think also shows how dedicated to being a serious source of information they were. -Madison Roberts

Glory is an interesting primary source for 1989 simply for the reason it was made.  As someone who has lived in Fredericksburg Virginia (which is drenched in civil war history and “historians”) I had never heard of the 54th regiment.  For many viewers this would have been the first time learning of the regiment and Glory did a decent job of introducing it.  The characterization was not perfect, it still has rather stereotyped black characters (although Morgan Freeman as the wise older figure has almost become a trope in itself) and some misrepresentations, but it did show the strife and ultimate tragedy of the regiment. -Janis Shurtleff

====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

In terms of teaching African American history, the film //Glory// is a very important film. Like //Amistad//, it brings attention to the history of enslaved individuals in nineteenth century America. Its portrayal of the black regiments during the Civil War and the events that took place in that time is mostly accurate and holds an important place in African American history. While the film does have some inaccuracies, as any historical film does, these inaccuracies shouldn't outweigh the film's importance. Honestly, a lot of the film's importance is due to its accuracy, being that it is considered to be more historically accurate than most other films. -- Jordan Petty

This film is iconic in the way it portrays the civil war, especially from an African American perspective. This war is known in many people's collective consciousness as a war that was fought for the end of slavery, and this film gives the general public an entertaining, albeit sometimes inaccurate depiction of the Northern, specifically Black soldier perspective of the war. Ultimately, this film can inspire people, help them understand that the war really was brutal and depressing, that Freed men really did have a reason to fight and many White Northerners were willing to help them, despite many still casting doubts. It is not dangerous to society if the general public thinks Fort Wagner was never taken, or if Private Till did or didn't exist. Ultimately I think the American public can look to this film as a good, mostly accurate depiction of one of the most destructive and hard times in our history. And if there are some details wrong, I personally don't believe it hurts the message of the film. These were men, who fought for their own freedom, and there were men willing to help them fight for that freedom. -- AJ DeGeorge

Analyzing and watching this movie is incredibly important as it introduced many Americans to not only the story of the 54th Massachusetts Regiment, but also the racist conditions in the Union. In school, many students are taught that the Union fought the Civil War purely to end slavery, and while once the war started it definitely became one of the goals of the Union, it certainly wasn’t something that it set out to do in the beginning. This movie is important because it doesn't perpetuate the story and idea that the Union wasn’t racist, when in fact white supremacy was still a very popular idea in the North. This movie does a good job of highlighting the cruelty of the Civil War in general, and especially the struggles African American soldiers faced in their racist treatment by their fellow soldiers and the American government despite their hard work and sacrifices. -Morgan Gilbert

I think that like others have mentioned, this movie could be very helpful in showing a more accurate depiction of African Americans fighting in the Civil War. I think that it also shows that racism was not something that was only an issue in the South but also in the North. I think the film also shows a positive and accurate depiction of the different types of African American men in the war; whether it be runaway slaves or free men and I think that is important also. So many people are taught a version of history that leaves out, or skims over, the work that African Americans did to try to make their lives better; so I think that it is important to explain history in its entirety and I think this film helps with that. --Mariah Morton

I think that the movie is important to consider when talking about the Civil War because of its depiction of African Americans in the war. There are some things that would need to be clarified or discussed if this were to be used in a high school classroom, however, it does show the important pieces of this history that (as is the trend I am noticing) many don't care to or don't want to talk about. This movie shows the African Americans as an active part in the war rather than the untrue history that is often taught, the white men of the north coming to save them from slavery by dying for them. --Kimberly Sak

Though I was disappointed at the lack of portrayal of through the eyes of the 54th, I was amazed at the ways the movie showed symptoms of shellshock, or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) through Colonel Shaw. The movie opens during the Battle of Antietam, which is well known for being the bloodiest battle of the Civil War. Shaw appears to be a rather neutral character in those first moments, neither likable nor unlikeable. What really caught my attention is during the scene when he is talking to Thomas; he reaches over to get something to drink and jumps when the man behind him slams the window shut. Thomas brushes it off, but the audience of this film in 1989 would likely know that Shaw mistook the sound of the window closing for that of a rifle shot. Not only that, Shaw narrowly survived the battle he was previously in. He is obviously overwhelmed by his public assignment as commander of the 54th Regiment. Not only that, Shaw is incredibly young. He is obviously conflicted by many events that happen throughout the film, which is something I believe is meant to reach audiences of the time. The scene where the 54th receive their rifles for the first time is extremely ponent mainly due to the obvious turmoil and trauma Shaw is facing while watching the regiment play around with their weapons. Shaw is obviously having a flashback, ever if it is not portrayed on screen. From this perspective, I believe the film did a pretty good job showing the traumas associated with war. -- Lyndsey Clark

For all of its *many* errors, I feel like Glory is about as close as it gets to filmmakers attempting to accurately portray the past. And it seems to be one of the few movies that accurately captures the "spirit" of some aspect of the past by demonstrating the remarkable courage and resilience of African American Civil War soldiers fighting for a county that often treated them less than fairly against an enemy who saw them as less than human. -Ethan

Glory has been the best blend of entertainment and history that we have seen so far.  I appreciated the little details such as Thomas Searles trying to teach his comrades to read.  And though these movies often become nothing more than white savior films I felt  Shaw’s character was well written and played and not the focus.  His contributions, including that of his life, to the 54th regiment were contrasted with his personal struggles such as his shellshock and racism.  Glory took a very different approach then what we usually see in Civil War movies because it didn’t water down the horror, fear and tragedy of the past. -Janis Shurtleff

This film does so much better than the previous films we have seen to portray African Americans and to establish the harsh realities of the Civil War. It tackles the racism and discrimination that the 54th regiment faced, addresses how this regiment was not the only black regiment but also shows the negative side through the poor leadership and racism of Montgomery in the film - addressing a real event that occurred. Though there were some faults in that there still is a "white savior" feeling to this narrative as Shaw fights for the men to get them into combat and to get them supplies, but I felt that the filmmakers seemed to also take care to combat that narrative where the men do take their own initiative in scenes like Rawls discussing the necessity for shoes with Shaw, and the men leading the final charge on Fort Wagner after Shaw falls. It was a good movie overall and is an important consideration of how historical films like these can bring forward less known topics in history like the 54th regiment and also as //Amistad// did as well. I was pretty impressed overall with the film. It's something that I would consider showing my students when I teach US History to provoke further discussion and address a greater variety of perspectives in the war. 
-Ashley Dimino

I appreciated the movie Glory and that it tried to stay true to history while also keeping the audience captivated. One of the things I noticed in the movie that although they tried to split the time between many characters, the ultimate focus on Robert Gould Shaw, why did the filmmakers choose to focus on Shaw? Was it because he was in charge, was because there was more information about him, or because it appeals to white audiences? -Helen Dhue

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International