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

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

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 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

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'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