The movie gets a lot right historically with the liberties mostly for characters. One minor thing about Robert Gould Shaw's depiction is that historically he initially rejected the offer to command the 54th Massachusetts the first time, and a few days later changed his mind. While in the movie he accepts the offer the day he was given it. Historically he was given the offer by a letter delivered by his father, while in the movie he was asked in person by Governor Andrew and Frederick Douglas. https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Gould-Shaw -Kyle Moore

In this film, Robert Gould Shaw's second-in-command was Major Cabot Forbes, Robert's friend and essentially a brother in arms. In reality, Cabot Forbes wasn't a real soldier during the Civil War, much less the battle at Fort Wagner. Robert Gould Shaw's real second-in-command was a man named Edward Needles Hallowell. Forbes acts as the Hallowell of this film, and apparently his name is a fusion of the names of two of Shaw's friends of the same last names. Also, it is important to know that Hallowell didn't die at Fort Wagner; while he was fatally wounded, he would escape along with the other half of the regiment that managed to make it out. I point this out because it is heavily implied in the final charge that Hallowell's character in the film (Forbes) died alongside the other major characters (in particular, Morgan Freeman's character). You can take it with a pinch of salt though, since the only confirmed kills we see post-battle are Malcom X and Ferris Bueller. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/12926/edward-needles-hallowell –Robert Dallas

In an early scene when the soldiers are marching through the town, there are two children that talk to Morgan Freeman. After he walks away, the kids wave goodbye to him and the rest of the men. Unfortunately, the young actors forgot to take their non-1860's digital watches off..hahaha –Lindsey Sowers

The film implies that the 54th Massachusetts Regiment was made up mostly of former slaves. Most of the men in the unit (about 70%) were actually free their entire lives. They wanted to fight for the north and for fellow African Americans. –Maryanna Stribling

During the actual battle at Fort Wagner, Shaw had died early in the battle at Fort Wagner and it continued late into the night. Due to the movies timing, it makes it seem that Shaw had died later than he actually did during the real event. –Alyx Wilson

I think the movie did a good job of showing the complexity of race relations in the North, and especially in the military. None of the white characters given screen time were 100% non-racist, except for maybe Forbes/Cary Elwes/The Dread Pirate Roberts. Shaw was not always kind to the soldiers, but had more of a practical officer-subordinate relationship with them. The Irish officer was flat out racist. I also liked that this film showed various black perspectives that were not overly stereotyped, much unlike Gone With the Wind. It was also quite true to the readings from Gooding, who described the high morale of the troops and willingness to fight for the Union. –Erin Shaw

The movie did a really good job of showing the final battle. While the first scene depicting the battle of Antietam is best described by a New York Times film review by Vincent Canby where he says “'Glory' begins in the manner of one of those re-enactments one sees at battlefields where, in cause of tourism on summer weekends, local citizens put on period costumes and play at history.” But when you get to Fort Wagner the director did a good job of showing the confusion and desperation of battle. There was a mix of hand to hand combat as well as with weapons which was very common during the Civil War. The battle scene comes across as men fighting to just survive and out of pure desperation which is interesting and does not always come across in battle scenes. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/14/movies/review-film-black-combat-bravery-in-the-civil-war.html –Ellora Larsen

Robert Gould Shaw was the Coronel of the 54th Regiment and he did lead the assault at Fort Wager where he 50% of his men died, including himself. – Courtlyn Plunkett

For the most part, Shaw has been portrayed accurately. His commitment to the unit and abolition were real, as was his hard work in shaping the regiment and his death alongside them. – Lindsey Sowers

While it may seem minor, there was a very specific injury that the movie got right during the battle of Antietam at the very beginning of the film. During this scene, Robert Gould Shaw is seemingly nipped in the neck, which he constantly touches to see if it's bleeding out until he actually gets “treatment” for it following the battle. This injury is actually historically accurate, as he was recorded as to having received a neck injury (though it's unspecified exactly what the nature of the injury was, though it was presumably minor) during this campaign on the 17th of September. http://antietam.aotw.org/officers.php?officer_id=980 –Robert Dallas

The movie did an excellent job at depicting the long term struggle the 54th had to endure to win the right to enter the fight. It showed the North in positive and negative lights allowing for there to be a deeper understanding of the pervasiveness of racism in the Union. The battle scenes are accurate and demonstrate the mental struggle that soldiers had to face. The references to PTSD during the film when Shaw was startled at the party when further to convey the messages that war was not to be entirely glorified.– Grace Corkran

The movie showed how the African American soldiers faced discrimination compared to white soldiers. They weren't given uniforms or weapons right away, and had to prove to others that they were capable of fighting. Furthermore, the regiments refusal to accept lower pay was true, although it was Shaw, rather than the fictional Private Trip, that encouraged this. –Maryanna Stribling

The treatment of African American soldiers throughout the film was one of the most accurate and important aspects of the film that I observed. Like some of my fellow students above stated, people were not quick to treat them like soldiers and give them uniforms, guns, and especially the ability to actually fight. The film shows the struggle of getting those things for the men and the hesitancy that most people had towards African American soldiers. – Carolyn Stough

Going off of Grace, I do think the movie did a good job showing the struggle the 54th regiment went through. It showed the complexity of the differentiation of between the African American soldiers and white commanding officers. –Caroline Collier

The movie really got how Shaw was as a colonel for the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. He fought along side African American soldiers and even sought out to make sure they got what they deserved as soldiers, such as the equal pay. Another thing the film got right was the final scene when the Confederates were burying the fallen Union; they buried Shaw with the other fallen 54th soldiers as an insult, when his family saw it as an honor. –Alyx Wilson

I agree with Erin’s comment about the different perspective of black soldiers. I think the film reflects what black soldiers felt while they were in the regiment, although all wished to join they began realizing that they weren’t being given the same rights and opportunities as the white soldiers. Also, one of the scenes I thought to be quite powerful is when Colonel Shaw tears his check in two. He actually did refuse his check because the pay for black soldiers was not equal to the pay of white soldiers. Also, the battles were quite graphic and believable, it conveys the disorientation and fear of the soldiers. The scene where the 54th regiment believed they defeated a group of Confederates and began cheering only to realize how wrong they were, clearly depicts how different they expected a battle to be. When they see many more Confederate soldiers headed their they had “oh $%@#” written all over their faces. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw - Johana Colchado

The movie was very true in the beginning to the facial hair presented by the men. The movie also did a good job of showing the brutality of the war through the amputations and the screaming of the wounded. They also showed sanitation standards that would have been similar such as not cleaning instruments in clean water. The doctors would use the same materials to amputate all of the limbs in a day. There was also an accurate reference to contraband, being runaway slaves from slave states. The film also accurately portrayed how there was an order about POW's concerning black regiments as well as white commanders of black regiments. –Jack Hagn

Upon the 54th's arrival in the South, just before Shaw meets Montgomery, two Union soldiers unfurled a variant of the U.S. flag on which the stars are arrayed in a flower pattern. This variant of the flag, known as the “Great Flower flag”, was commonly used during the time of the Civil War. Source: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-1861.html ~Will Everett

I think that this movie was one of the most accurate historically that we’ve watched this year. The way it handled race relations and included the perspectives of the black characters is especially noticeable in comparison to Gone With the Wind. - Sam Hartz

The movie does try to move away from the stereotypes portrayed in movies like, Gone with the Wind, however there were still stereotypes in the movie. Robert Shaw was the white savior, the Irish drill instructor was there to show opposition to black soldiers, John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) was the wise African American, Thomas Searles was meant to depict free African Americans who have assimilated into 'white' society, the list goes on. Do you think that these stereotypes are useful in showing the variety of people involved in the 54th's history and enlistment? Do you think that they detract from the message of the movie by making it seem as though there are categories that these people are sorted into?– Grace Corkran

SGT Maj. Mulcahy is what happens when someone tries to make a war film two years after Full Metal Jacket. The overly aggressive training montage was a must have after R. L. Ermys depiction of basic training. I wonder how much of that was put into this films depiction of Sgt. Major Mulcahy. –William Roszell

The Union's treatment of the 54th regiment is an understatement. While the movie does highlight the horrific moments such as the whipping scene, the Union is still seen as the benevolent and righteous leaders of the black troops. The movie does for sure make the Union look wrong at times (low pay, lack of respect from other troops, lack of materials for men, etc.) But the movie still often understates the poor treatment of the troops throughout the war. But including all of that wouldn't really make a good movie, would it? -Lake Wiley

One thing I was wondering about while watching this film is did any African American soldiers actually get promoted to non-commissioned officer ranks like is shown in the film? I think this film exaggerated the respect and care white officers had for the African American soldiers of the 54th. It makes for a better and more interesting film though to have a hero character who is not only helpful to the African American soldiers, but a non-racist friend to them as well. – Carolyn Stough

One of the things I noticed was how the 54th regiment went into battle with their stripes that indicated their rank. From what I’ve been told, soldiers didn’t wear their rank into battle nor salute their leader since that would be a huge giveaway. I don’t know if filmmakers included this in the film to make the scene more touching since the regiment had struggled to obtain basic needs and now they had a chance to show them off to everyone including their enemy. - Johana Colchado

The scene with the sacking of Darien stood out to me. The movie was trying to paint Colonel Montgomery as the evil antithesis to Shaw, refusing to discipline his men or prepare them for war and ultimately showing his own racism when he shoots a soldier for assaulting a white woman after ignoring his attempted rape of a slave. Still, this results in the movie painting what might appear as a racist portrait of the “black rapist” stereotype, who has such uncontrollable sexual urges that he is literally willing to die to get off. Did the movie realize how that looked? Or, similar to the decision Shaw made to flog Tripp, did the movie decide that the bad optics were worth it to tell this particular story? (Justin Curtis)

I'm curious about the hostile relationship between Trip and Thomas. Why did the film makers decide to pit these two against one another (Trip being the instigator). What message were they trying to convey about a runaway slave fighting and a man who was always free fighting. That they were all fighting for the same cause. I was just wondering about that story line in the movie in general. -Amiti Colson

Upon conducting further research, I was surprised to learn that Shaw was actually married, and that his marriage took place less than a month prior to the 54th's deployment. Why wasn't this shown–or at least mentioned–in the film? Source: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw ~Will Everett

In a post-Vietnam society, audiences were likely more open to experiencing the horrors of war on screen in 1989. It reminded me of The Patriot in that it did not shy away from showing how brutal war really is, especially when cannons can blow someone's head off. The 80s and 90s were also a great time for action movies, so adding in the battle scenes likely resonated with audiences. –Erin Shawe

Like Amistad, it seems like this movie takes pretty famous actors and places them into the story to make a rough story more palatable and encourage people to come to see the movie. Mathew Broderick was well known due to Ferris Bueler's Day Off. Denzel Washington was just coming off of a well-known medical drama from the 1980s, St. Elsewhere, so he had his own critical appeal. Cary Elwes was coming from playing Westley in The Princess Bride ( I spent the whole movie trying to figure out why he looked so familiar). Finally, Morgan Freeman had a long career in T.V. and film before this movie. Was this a directorial choice to get more people into the movie with the amount of star power that the cast had? – Ellora Larsen

The movie represents a very 20th-century debate using the conflict between Dezel Washington’s Tripp and Andre Braugher’s Thomas. Tripp represents a more radical approach to combatting racism; he rails against the system. Thomas comes down on the side of respectability politics (although in the eighties they did not yet have that terminology). The movie shows later on just what state race relations were in the eighties when Morgan Freeman steps in and gives his “If you’re not careful, that’s all you’ll ever be” speech to Denzel, suggesting that the movie as a whole comes down on the side of respectability politics, since M.F. ultimately gets the last word. This was a pretty common sentiment in the late eighties after the more radical elements of the Civil Rights movement had died down. (Justin Curtis)

I'm curious as to why Kevin Jarre decided to write this movie from a white colonel's perspective on the history of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. This seems to be a story that could be told from an African American soldier's point of view. It could have given more background stories of the soldiers. It makes sense I guess that this movie released in the late 80's cast a famous white male actor as its lead. There is more that can be done with this story though, so opportunity remains for another movie on the 54th Infantry. -Amiti Colson

Comparing this movie to the other movie we watched about the Civil War helps to say a lot about this movie. These movies told not only different stories but fundamentally different narratives of each time period. Both movie tell a story of the losing side, but do so in very different ways. During a more inherently prejudice time, Gone With the Wind tells the story perpetuating the cult of the lost cause. Fifty years later, follow the civil rights era, the late 80’s is definitely a more racially conscious time than the 40’s and the filmmakers choose to tell a story highlighting the Union and real African American soldiers who fought and lost. -Erin Andrewlevich

I agree with Ellora, the movie most likely wouldn’t have been as successful without these well-known actors from popular films. I think this movie is a good general representation of the treatment and struggle of blacks during the civil war, specifically about them trying to become part of the military. The film also makes sure to reflect the brutality of war and the misconceptions the soldiers who had never been in battle had (this was when Shaw observed his regiment playing with the guns and pretending to kill each other). - Johana Colchado

Glory serves as an example of the desire to solidify a strong national identity during the 80s. With the Cold War still going on and Reagan pushing harder for American values, the American identity was being pushed for more and more. Glory recognizes this as it attempts to put forward a unified look at the Civil War, with the 54th as the ideal of a US identity. The movie even points out how while this unit was the ideal of all units as it was disciplined, but still was able to hold personal identities. Even for the rest of the troops, they are shown to have grown as they cheer for the 54th on their last mission. –Sky Horne

I'm assuming Gooding's accounts of the experiences of the 54th regiment were used as references for this film, because they were very similar. A lot of detail on the lives of the troops were provided that coincided with the movie, like the high morale and Shaw protesting the low pay of the soldiers. It also discusses Shaw being buried in a trench with everyone else, which was something that surprised me in the film. However, I thought the final scene of Shaw being buried alongside Trip and the other soldiers was a symbol for racial equality, which was not the goal of the confederates who actually buried Shaw in the ditch. –Erin Shaw

Gooding’s letter to President Lincoln is a complaint to how African American soldiers were paid three dollars a month less than white soldiers. This depiction is similarly shown in the film when Shaw informs the regiment that they will be paid $10 instead of $13 this then leads Trip to show his dissatisfaction for this by rallying other soldiers to not accept this pay. – Courtlyn Plunkett

George W. Hatton’s account of watching a former slave master being whipped by his former slaves is something that showed the North was on the side of former slaves. Hatton, as a former slave, gained confidence that the North was fighting for him. However, in Glory, the whipping scene was an entirely different thing. The whipping of Tripp in Glory is one of a moral dilemma and misunderstanding for Abolishionist Shaw and a bleak reminder of the cruelty of slavery. -Kyle Moore

The whipping scene described in the readings isn’t anything like the one shown in the film. The punishment of Tripp was out of necessity due to his violating the rules of camp and not based on race. This caused a moral issue due to it being a common punishment for enslaved peoples where Shaw was simply enacting military punishment on a soldier who went AWOL. –William Roszell

The movie does an excellent job of portraying the honorary masculine rhetoric that was used to encourage soldiers at the time. Just as the white commanders of the soldiers tell them to “act like men,” Susie King Taylor asserts that the men who fought struck “a manly blow for the liberty of your race.” The emphasis put on manliness in both the readings and the film perpetuates the ideal of a brave and hyper masculine American soldier that is the prototype of our idea of soldiers today. –Jessica Lynch

“Glory” is an important film for racial representation in 1989. It works to glorify the patriotism exhibited by a group of Americans who have been marginalized since their introduction to our continent. Just as white commanders and soldiers were amazed by the bravery of black unionists who honorably led the charge for worse wages and conditions during the civil war, audiences were enlightened in regards to the role and impact of African Americans during the civil war in 1989. People of color in America so often have their stories and experiences silenced and left unacknowledged by the general public, and “Glory” attempts to be the exception. It could be argued that the film's emphasis on Shaw undermines the African Americans' contributions, however, this is accurate to the time, as Shaw was a well known martyr for the cause and highly respected. –Jessica Lynch

This movie is important because it shines light on the tensions between northern whites and African Americans at the time of the Civil War. It shows how they were able to come together in order to preserve the Union, while also spending a lot of time demonstrating the resistance on the side of the North to allowing this regiment to fight. There is a tendency to think that the North was entirely on the side of the abolishionist and the South was racist, when in reality racisim was prevelant all over the nation. This movie shows the degree to which African Americans had to fight to win the right to fight for their freedom. It does not overlly glorify the North, but shows the struggle created when the 54th entered the war.– Grace Corkran

This movie is very important because it is not only an entertaining movie that will draw various audiences in, it is a rather accurate movie. While watching this movie, viewers can obtain quality content on what this time period was like visually and physically, as well as what it was like for the experiences and struggles of black Americans who fought in the Civil War. -Erin Andrewlevich

The film works to tell the story of the heroic African Americans who fought during the Civil War, and for the most part it does this successfully. It does a good job of showing that even though the North is typically associated with abolitionism, there was still racism among the soldiers and commanding officers. However, even this was lessened by the seeming acceptance of the soldiers close to the end. It also showed how the treatment of African Americans changed based on how well they were educated with the way Thomas was treated particularly at the beginning. –Sky Horne

“What's the point. Ain't nobody gonna win. It's just gonna go on and on,” Private Trip. “It can't go on forever,” Shaw. “Yeah, but ain't nobody gonna win,” Trip. “Somebody's gonna win,” Shaw. “Well you, you get to go on back to Boston, live in a big house and all that. What about us? What do we get?” Trip. This scene of the movie where Shaw and Trip exchange words for the first time is a pivotal moment in the movie. It contributes to that so what question of what are the creators of this film trying to convey to us through this story. This movie portrays the African American soldiers' contributions to the war effort, but it also displayed the reality of the times, that when the war ended, it didn't mean there would be a happy ending for all African Americans, it was only the beginning of a long road to true freedom and equality. -Amiti Colson

The movie shows how complicated war really is and how many things about war tear apart people but also bring them together. The movie took a very important part of American Civil War history that is more unknown than known. The complex views of of whites about slaves and freed blacks are represented well in all of the aspects we talked about in class. The movie shows what life was like for all walks of life for black men. Edward Zwick does a good job of representing the history of the 54th Massachusetts and providing a entertaining movie to watch. This shows a very positive example for historical films. This movie is not a monument to southern pride like “Gone with the Wind” but it shows the good and bad of the north in a realistic way. This movie provides a historical and entertaining accurate portrayal of African American soldiers in the Civil War. –Jack Hagn

The movie shows the Civil War in an accurate way while also doing a good job of handling complexities around race and society in that time period. This sets it apart from the other movies that we have discussed up until now. I think that it was a pretty honest portrayal, and didn’t have one of those overly optimistic post-racial endings like in the way that The Patriot did. It did all this while still being a fun movie to watch. - Sam Hartz