I see I’m not the only one who was less than impressed with The History Channel’s Gettysburg documentary. Check out the reactions from Eric Wittenberg and Kevin Levin, and then read the comments at Brooks Simpson’s blog.
I wasn’t really sure what the producers were trying to accomplish here. The promotional material seemed to indicate that the program would give us some type of insight into the common soldier’s experience of the battle in order to demonstrate that Civil War combat wasn’t a romantic or glorious affair. That’s not a bad idea for a documentary, and indeed the program did zero in on a few individuals and followed them through the course of some of the action. But those individuals included high-ranking officers like William Barksdale and Dan Sickles, which effectively turned these sequences into conventional battle narrative. At the same time, many important aspects of the battle just got skipped over entirely. The program was therefore neither fish nor fowl—not comprehensive enough to be a good overview of the general flow of the battle as a whole, but not focused enough to provide a good discussion of what was going on among the rank and file.
As a stylistic matter, the gritty, modern war approach to filming the reenacted sequences just didn’t work for me. With all the handheld shots, dramatic slow-motion, and running through the streets and over terrain hither and yon, I felt like I was watching Black Hawk Down or Saving Private Ryan. The combination of nineteenth-century gear and modern-day combat camera work was a little too jarring. Furthermore, it didn’t seem that the high-speed zooming along the pathways of bullets and through the CG maps really added anything to the explanation of what was happening.
As a final note, while I’m no expert in the kind of minute details that make up a good reenacting impression, it appeared to me that an unhealthy amount of farbiness managed to make it in onto the screen. What was with all the long-haired Confederates?