My first exposure to Glory was in my eighth grade American history class. We had just finished reading about the Civil War and our teacher was away on a planned absence. In her place she had the substitute play this film. I remember being struck by the treatment the soldiers were given and shocked at the vivid views of the war we had just been studying. It was a remarkable learning aid that helped bring the Civil War to life for me.

Now, years later, I question whether in this day and age this type of movie would be seen by junior high students. But, some graphic material aside (see below), it should be. For younger viewers, the fact that there are some extreme shots of war may overshadow the fact that Glory is an extraordinary view into the acts ones would engage in for the mere chance of freedom, yet the sum total of this film demands that it be seen at some point in one’s life.

Glory is the story of the brave men in the 54th Regiment of Massachusetts, an all-black troop fighting in the Civil War. The film stars Matthew Broderick as real life historical figure Robert Gould Shaw, a 23-year-old Colonel in the Union Army. He is joined by an all-star cast that includes Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman and Cary Elwes. They detail this true story as taken from Col. Shaw’s letters back home.

While packed with visceral images of war, the dramatic points of the movie come not from the action sequences but from the internal struggles Broderick’s Shaw deals with. Many of his men were his friends before the war. Now, he’s their on-the-field leader. Shaw struggles with how he should treat these former friends as he battles for respect among the other soldiers and officers, many of whom have no respect for the black soldiers. He ultimately gains the respect of both by demanding - and ultimately getting - shoes for his men. Shoes … because even in the anti-slavery Union, blacks boasted precious little in the way of amenities. Such poignant moments emphasize the bravery and sacrifice inherent in his struggles for his men. By doing this, by putting himself on the line, Shaw enriches their strengths of heart and focuses their energy. The ultimate lesson shown is that a sacrifice is worthwhile regardless of bigotry.

There are battles depicted on screen – depicted realistically, and hence graphically – but ultimately the movie is pushed forward by the character drama, and finished off by the great action sequences. It would be a shame if new generations failed to understand that the Civil War was just as hard fought as the Revolutionary War, World War II, Vietnam, or any of the Iraq Wars.

And that is this film’s strength. This movie deserves the praises it has received. The actors reached inside themselves and acted from the heart. The accolades to Denzel Washington, who received an Academy Award, are well documented. What isn’t as highly discussed is Matthew Broderick’s performance. Just a few years after he played Ferris Bueller, Broderick showed that his range extends well beyond comedy. Though a few years older than the real life colonel, Broderick was often criticized for being too young for the part. This is shocking to me as his age and acting range strengthened the character and made me care about what would happen. Finally, Morgan Freeman, a great actor who has cornered the market on the quiet-guy-who-knows-more-than-he-lets-on, offers more of the same here, but to no less impact for being in the realm of what we’ve seen before and since. He perfected this method of acting in Driving Miss Daisy, and later showed this same temperament in Shawshank Redemption. It’s just as strong in Glory.

So what is there to be critical of when considering this film from the perspective of a younger viewer? In one of the first action sequences, during the battle of Antietam, a soldier’s head is exploded by a cannon shot. Even 17 years later, the image is very believable. I remember being warned about this in 8th grade. I found it ironic that during the actual battle, many families went and had a picnic and watched the conflict unfold - yet somehow we now feel that our children must be shielded by this act of violence. Beyond this, the final action sequence features some intense war scenes. Also included in the film are some racial epitaphs, including, of course, use of the word “nigger.” These terms are used sparingly and only in circumstances that it was probably really used.

The important point – and in fact the entire point – is that the film doesn’t shy away from the harsh reality of being the first black regiment. During one scene, an Army colonel shoots a black soldier for “wrestling” with a white woman, even as his own white soldiers were doing the same. Beyond these events there is nothing else that could be construed as needing to be censored from young viewers. A simple discussion of the time and place depicted on screen can help students understand the time period and how and why things changed. The greater censorship would be not letting students view this modern classic.

Presentation 
The original transfer was from a master source less than 10 years from its original release. Both versions share the same transfer, so determine if the extras presented on the special edition are worth the price difference.

Extras
The 1998 release reviewed here contained a widescreen presentation on one side, and a full screen presentation on the other. This was a bare bones release with only the trailer. In 2001, Columbia Tristar gave this a special two-disc edition release. It included deleted scenes, a full-length documentary and two featurettes. In addition, the package included a biography/filmography on the main stars. Both of these editions are now out of print, so finding either may be difficult.

The Bottom Line
When it comes to great Civil War movies there really are only two. While Gone With The Wind focused on a civilian life, Glory shows what it was like to fight. But the movie is more than a great war movie, it’s a great drama. If you haven’t seen this movie, go ask your junior high history teacher why she hates America.