I wanted to discuss the scene where the 54th Massachusetts Regiment is assigned to go to Darien, Georgia and are instructed by General Charles Harker, along with the black soldiers from Montgomery, to pillage the town, fire at the civilians, and then burn the buildings. This was very reminiscent of the scenes of the Green Dragons in The Patriot and how they treated civilians during the American Revolution. At first, I could not tell if that scene was based on historical events, or if it was creating a narrative of the “good” and “bad” black soldiers for the Union army. Based on this article (https://www.todayingeorgiahistory.org/tih-georgia-day/burning-of-darien/#:~:text=June%2011%2C%201863%20%2D%20Darien,cotton%2C%20rice%2C%20and%20lumber), the burning of Darien did really happen and the 54th and 2nd Regiments were involved, and the 54th was “reluctant” to participate in Harker’s orders. And Shaw wrote in letters that he had reluctantly carried out the orders as well, calling it a “satanic action.” –Olivia Foster

I feel like the movie is an accurate portrayal of how people viewed black soldiers at that time. We have talked about in class how different groups viewed them and treated them. The union army was not happy about the black soldiers joining. They were not fighting to free the enslaved people and they were not nice to the African American soldiers. There was also tension between the black soldiers and how they viewed each other. Soldiers who were enslaved looked down on free blacks and vice versa. -Sophie Weber

The film did an excellent job, I think, of presenting the discrimination faced by the black soldiers in the 54th regiment. It shows the hostility that many in the Union army had towards the concept of black soldiers. The film does not portray the cause of the Union fighting in the war as fighting to end slavery. I think the film pretty accurately portrays the history of the 54th regiment, exposing general audiences to history they may not have known about before. - Maris Tiller

I think this movie does a good job at portraying the racism and hardships that the 54th faced. At first they were not used for combat but for labor, and they were not welcomed by other soldiers or even northern civilians. Even though abolitionists may have been fighting for emancipation did not mean they weren’t racist. Furthermore, a lot of the union soldiers entered the war under the impression that it was to reunite the union, and not for emancipation. Therefore, the extreme racism and the rather liberal use of the n-word were pretty historically accurate. -Teresa Felipe

One thing this movie portrayed well was the relationship between Black and White soldiers at the time, especially the fact that most White soldiers did not take the Black soldiers seriously and used them for labor instead of combat. This is especially poignant in the scene where the Black soldiers are doing manual labor as the White soldiers walk by and tensions are strong. It is also shown through how long it took for the Black soldiers to receive shoes, uniforms, and supplies, as well as the inclusion of their pay being $10 instead of $13. I looked it up, and Shaw did in fact lead a boycott on all pay until the situation was changed, something I thought was fictitious when watching the movie. https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw#:~:text=When%20he%20learned%20that%20black,for%20service%20in%20South%20Carolina. The movie also kept to the fact that most of the White characters were still very racist, even if they were working with Black characters. Previous movies we have watched have avoided using language accurate to the time to portray the White characters in a better light, so it was nice to see there was less sanitization of racism. — Sasha Poletes

The films depiction was better then expected specifically to how black soldiers were treated in the war. The thing we went over in class like how most soldiers didn’t get official uniforms until later. I was also surprised that Shaw refused his own pay in the film. I didn’t know if that was true or not so I looked it up and it was from the quick sources I looked at. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gould_Shaw) (https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-54th-massachusetts-infantry) I don’t know why I expected it to be untrue but maybe it was because its one of those moments that you want to believe happened, like if there was some good with the actions during the war and everything that happened after with the treatment of people of color. It was interesting. - Paula Perez

After doing more research and taking what we learned about in class, Shaw was more hesitant to take over the 54th regiment then was played out in the movie. He didn't want to as he didn’t think it would further his military career. Another inaccuracy to note was that the soldiers in the his army were pretty much all free black men whereas the film depicts most of them as enslaved. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-glory-still-resonates-more-three-decades-later-180975794/ -Sophie Weber

All the black characters in this film were fictional, as were most of the characters in general, save Shaw and a few of the higher-ranking officers. As Sophie mentioned, most of the soldiers of the 54th were well-educated, free Black men who were almost primarily recruited from Northern states without slavery. Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington's characters would probably not have been accepted into the 54th and were most likely added for a contrasting, dramatic effect in comparison to characters like Thomas Searles. A review I read also hypothesized that Thomas was loosely based on one of Frederick Douglass's sons, and as Douglass was portrayed in the movie, I wondered if that opportunity was missed just to give Shaw a more sympathetic view with the character of Thomas. Lewis Douglass was also awarded an unofficial command, which was shown, but to Morgan Freeman's character, which makes it doubly seem like a missed opportunity. (Coincidentally the same review as Sophie's link above) – Jane Michael

One major thing this movie got wrong was the whipping scene when Trip went to go find shoes. During this time no Federal soldier would have been whipped. That was outlawed by the Union Army in 1861 and was outlawed by the Confederates in 1862. Furthermore, even if an officer decided to go against the law and whip someone for desertion, it would have never happened in a Black regiment such as the 54th due to the significance it would carry and the similarities to slavery and slave holers that the event would bring up. https://acws.co.uk/archives-military-discipline#:~:text=At%20the%20beginning%20of%20the,officer%20facing%20a%20court%2Dmartial. -Teresa Felipe

A scene I was confused about was the Battle of Fort Wagner. The movie implies that everyone was killed at the end, as those who did not die getting to the fort were all killed by the confederates within the fort itself. Though the text at the end clears it up, I think the movie overly dramaticizes the last scene, especially since we talked about in class how a 50% casualty rate was not unusual. I think in general the ending seemed rushed and simplified, though I can understand why for purposes of running time they decided to end the movie with Fort Wagner. I think it would have been useful to explicitly show the effects of the battle on northern views about Black soldiers, even if was just a short clip of the journalist writing an article or something like that. Maybe this is an unfair criticism, but the ending seemed misrepresented to me — Sasha Poletes

This film actually seemed pretty historically accurate, although it definitely suffers from the casting of so many rising stars. The time period is reflected in the narrative, as it does often tell the story of the 54th from the perspective of Shaw. Obviously he was a large figure in the story, but the “white savior” narrative did seem a bit like it bled through in some places, especially in the scene where he demands shoes from the quartermaster - an event that most likely did not occur. It very much reflects the filmmakers feeling that Matthew Broderick's screen time would make the most profit, and that the white savior route, no matter how subtle, was a safer option to appeal to audiences of the time. – Jane Michael

Even though the film shows some awareness about the racism the 54th regiment of Massachusetts faced, it seemed very willing to favor the story of the white man, Shaw, who led the regiment rather than the story of the soldiers themselves. His death was very important to the regiment and the war after the attack on Fort Wagner, but I feel the film sidelines the black characters in favor of the white ones. This shows the bias of the time. Centering white characters in black stories was extremely common, and I do think this film does a better job with exploring the lives of the black characters than other films at the time. I think it was probably just a decision to appeal to wider audiences - Maris Tiller

Similar to when watching Amistad, I felt very distracted by this all-star cast. They may not have been as famous at the time when this movie was made, but as a modern audience, I found it extremely distracting to watch and see these actors as anything more than their real-life personas or their characters from their notable movies. I do think that the choice to make a film based on the 54th Massachusetts Regiment and the Battle of Fort Wagner was very interesting. Objectively speaking, this movie is about the losers in this specific battle, which on paper does not make for a compelling story. A movie where practically all of the main characters are brutally killed and the battle that the regiment fought is lost to the Confederacy does not sound like a very stereotypical American war film. They used this history to depict how black Union soldiers were treated after the 54th and Lincoln’s response. –Olivia Foster

Seeing this movie right after Gone With The Wind was really refreshing. Gone With The Wind depicted a Civil War reality full of honorable men fighting a powerful cause, but this showed the Civil War in a more honest depiction. It is obviously a better display of the racial hardships during this era instead of the naive, happy-go-lucky depiction in Gone With The Wind (of course the context of both are very different, but as they are depicting the same era I feel as though they are comparable). – Logan Kurtz

I definitely agree with Olivia where she said that this movie wasn’t your typical American war film. Usually American War films take place as a winning film or battle etc. so even though I knew what happened in the end, I still expected them to take the Fort. Although it wasn’t a physical win, it was spiritually. (Inspirational) That being said I expected more dialogue at the end of the film. I think it was cut off at a bad moment. Although, the cut off also gives the viewer a questioning viewpoint of “what happens next?” In this case, the viewer can look up the information themselves over what was the next move historically. - Paula Perez