Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!auvm!CUNYVMS1!TFD From: TFD@CUNYVMS1.BITNET (Theresa F.M. Muir TFD@CUNYVM1.BITNET) Newsgroups: bit.listserv.cinema-l Subject: "Glory" Message-ID: Date: 9 Feb 90 20:12:00 GMT Sender: Discussions on all forms of Cinema Reply-To: Discussions on all forms of Cinema Lines: 24 Approved: NETNEWS@AUVM Gateway Original_To: JNET%"cinema-l@auvm" Original_cc: TFD Hi folks, I haven't logged on in a couple of days, but I did see Glory. Anybody else? I've heard some criticism of the casting of Matthew Broderick as the commanding officer of the regiment, and well, Broderick doesn't have what one would call a "commanding" presence-- but after all, who goes to war but boys? Often, who leads them but commissioned officers who are pathetically young? The same applies to eternally boyish Michael J. Fox (the next Mickey Rooney?) in Casualties of War. Anyway, "Glory" is a gorgeously made film, with beautiful photography, and a stirring score by James Horner (who seems to be able to duplicate the style of any composer-- many spots in this score were reminiscent of Ives's "Three Places in New England", and the Britten "War Requiem") "Glory" is well named, because the emphasis is not on any disturbing moral issues of the black regiment and their idealistic young white leader, but almost entirely on the amazing courage of all of these men. There is a calculating quality to this picture-- the beauty of the scenery, the sounds of the Harlem Boys Choir, and above all, the careful pacing of the story, while you grow to know and care for the characters, only to shatter them in war-- that links it to the line of really good war movies (or anti-war movies), like "From Here to Eternity"