Gettysburg (TV film)

Martin Sheen looked kind of short as Lee. Was Lee really short? At
least they got the beard right.

Howard Brazee...

The trouble is - most everybody was short in that era. Lincoln
wasn't that much taller than Washington, LBJ, or Clinton - but towered
over people in photos. A realistic portrayal probably shouldn't
match his absolute height, but his relative height.

cathy...

Lee was 5'10", Sheen is 5'7".

I liked the film esp the stuff with Jeff Daniels as Chamberlain.
Sometimes I thought the filmmakers were treating the subject matter
with too much holiness.

Was it accurate to history?

FoggyTown...

Well, even 4 hours fo film can't do proper justice to such a momentous
and complicated event. But, if you read Shaara, Cabot, Foote et al,
you will have noticed the similarities. Chamberlain's own account is
dry as toast but, again, without it there might not have been such a
wonderful characterization of him.

For me, there were some disappointments in the film. One was Richard
Jordan's portrayal of Lewis Armistead. He was so glutinously
sentimental that I think I'd have shot him myself.

ANIM8Rfsk...

How Tall Was Robert E. Lee?

David Alan Black

If people want to show respect for the Southern cause, they can begin by
properly honoring the man who is perhaps its greatest hero, General Robert

smee...

han

smee...

y=2E

smee...

I had a host of problems with _Gettysburg_, but Martin Sheen certainly
wasn't a major one. And I don't really understand Mr. Black's rather
passionate concern about Sheen's height, as though that was somehow of
paramount importance in defining the worth or validity of his
performance. (And, frankly, after skimming Black's other comments about
Robert E. Lee, one might easily come away concluding that Lee possessed
the ability to walk on water.)

E. Lee. Many portrayals of Lee are, frankly, less than accurate. Rather than
exalting his character, they diminish it‹both literally and figuratively.

Take Lee¹s physical height. If you were to ask people today what Lee looked
like, many would respond, ³Why, just like Martin Sheen in the movie.² The
³movie,² of course, is Ted Turner¹s $20 million Gettysburg, which has been
called the most ambitious and magnificently flawed cinematic undertaking
since Apocalypse Now. Unfortunately, Gettysburg fails to deliver the goods.
It depicts the South¹s greatest general‹and arguably the greatest military
leader who ever lived‹as a dwarf-like creature astride a diminutive, clumsy

John Harkness...

The gretest military leader who ever lived might have listened to
Longstreet and realized that Pickett's Charge -- go down to Gettysburg
and look stand on the ridge and look at how much ground the
Confederate infantry had to cross without cover -- was a vainglorious

John Harkness...

It makes a little more sense, but again, go to Gettysburg and look at
the ground....

John Harkness

and futile exercise.

John Harkness

horse. As movie critic Martin Treu has put it, ³In scene after scene,
General Robert E. Lee, a man of erect bearing just over 5 feet 10 inches
tall, weighing 170 pounds is shown among men who tower over him, both on
foot and on horseback. If this were the case, the entire Confederate army
would have to have been over 6 feet 4 inches tall. The only people obviously
shorter than Robert E. Lee, in this film, are the 12-year-old drummer boys.²

Treu¹s conclusion? ³The viewer is led to picture Robert E. Lee as a
Leprechaun instead of the giant he was.²

cathy...

Depends on who's history you read.

Mike O'Sullivan...

History is written by the victors.