
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: FRIDAY, March 2, 1990                   TAG: 9003014338
SECTION: EXTRA                    PAGE: E-1   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: Chris Gladden
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

`GLORY' SHOULD BE REQUIRED VIEWING BY ALL

The Civil War is arguably the most cataclysmic event in this country's history. An entire nation was ripped apart and then rejoined. More Americans were killed than in any other war. It was also the debut of modern warfare - the practice of punishing the enemy on its home front - by destroying homes, towns, crops and factories - as well as the battlefield. And it put an end to the abominable practice of slavery.

Its generals are the stuff of legends - Grant, Lee, Jackson, Custer, Sherman, Stuart. Many had served together before the war and this was indeed a conflict of brother against brother. Writers, historians and arm-chair scholars have long appreciated the significance, the huge ironies and the large-scale human drama of the war.

But except for a few profoundly notable exceptions, the Civil War has pretty much been ignored by filmmakers.

"Glory," Edward Zwick's very good movie about a black union regiment's charge into history is the first Civil War movie to arrive in a long time.

In an industry obsessed by the youth market, making it was a daring move on the part of the filmmakers. Demographics show that the vast majority of movie-goers fall into the 18 to 30 range. And a recent study showed that a shamefully large number of high school and college students couldn't put the Civil War into the proper century. In the survey for the National Endowment of the Humanities, some of the students placed the Civil War as happening in the 18th Century and a few placed it in the 20th Century.

With that in mind, a Civil War movie is unlikely to become a box-office hit. Regrettably, "Glory" didn't beat the odds despite its grand visuals, its inspirational theme and its plentitude of action.

In the words of the Associated Press, it fizzled, bringing in only $18 million in 11 weeks of release. While it may not become a hit, this chronicle of a black regiment - the 54th Massachusetts Volunteers - that finally gains respect from fellow soldiers through exceptional gallantry can take its place with the better Civil War movies.

They begin with D.W. Griffith's "The Birth of A Nation," regarded by film scholars as America's landmark film. Made in 1915, it is dazzling in the way Griffith uses the language of film but his sympathetic portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan has bothered film scholars who admire Griffith's genius but not his wrong-headed view of night riders.

Then, of course, there's "Gone With the Wind." This is another American landmark but it's more of a romantic melodrama and character study set against the Civil War than a movie that focuses in on that gargantuan event.

One of the movies that has stayed with me since childhood is the modest but haunting production of Ambrose Bierce's "Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge."

Then there's John Ford's "The Horse Soldiers," his only Civil War movie. A lot of westerns touched on the Civil War but at heart they're still westerns.

Other Civil War era movies include Clint Eastwood's eerie "The Beguiled," the sentimental "Shenandoah" and "Friendly Persuasion." But the only movie I can think of other than "Glory" that deals with the horror of hand-to-hand combat and the awful sacrifices made during the conflict is "The Red Badge of Courage."

The great John Huston adapted this realistic look at the war from Stephen Crane's classic anti-war novel.

While "Glory" is rated R for its gory violence, it should be acknowledged in high school history classes. Teachers should encourage older students to turn out despite its violence. After all these same students have seen more carnage in the "Nightmare on Elm Street" movies. And they may just learn in which century the Civil War occurred. 3 1 CLIPS Clips

by CNB