Glory

**An excellent film that deserves to be revisited and brought back from oblivion.** For me, as a historian, this film couldn't be more interesting. It's not your average war movie, with soldiers running and shooting, and heroism spilling over from bloody deaths. It is much sharper and deeper because it talks about a topic that is treated with excessive ease when talking about the American Civil War: racism. And it's a shame that it's another relatively forgotten film these days. Really, if we think about it and are faithful to the mentality of the time, it cannot be said that the Civil War was a war against racism, because it was everywhere and in the Northern states, which were mostly against slavery, there was a strong racism that revealed itself in other ways. If in the South African-Americans were only good for slave labor, in the North they had to stay between the factory and the unhealthy suburbs. The difference was quite subtle. What existed in the North was a firmer awareness that slavery was something that should not continue to exist, a vision of things that the South did not accept because it did not suit them, they were heavily agricultural states and their wealth depended on the export of cotton. The film tackles the subject by showing us how a black regiment was virtually segregated within the unionist army, and the pressure maneuvers its commander had to do to get his men to go fight with the other soldiers. Robert Shaw's gestures were decisive in convincing the Union to really believe in the ability of black soldiers and to recruit more people, giving the Union an additional asset that helped win the war. Directed by Edward Zwick, it is an excellent film that respects and honors the past. Even so, there are certain flaws in the historical reconstruction: there are some characters who were younger than in the film, there is an amputation that is much more cruel than it would have been in real life (anesthetics were already being used), it is not correct to say that the 54th of Massachusetts was the first regiment of blacks (there were two already formed, by Kansas) and it is also incorrect to show some of these blacks as former slaves, since this regiment was entirely formed by blacks born in freedom. Even if he makes these and other mistakes, we have to recognize that the production made a great effort to recreate the past with a certain level of accuracy. The film won three Oscars, in the categories of Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor and Best Sound. I think they were fair rewards. The cinematography couldn't be better, and makes wonderful use of the impressive work in terms of the sets, the choice of filming locations, the selection of props, the design of costumes. The editing is also very good, and the soundtrack, while not remarkable, has a certain epic sense and does an impeccable accompaniment to what appears on the screen. And if Denzel Washington deserved, for his effort and commitment, the golden statuette, many others could consider themselves worthy winners because the cast of this film is full of artists and professionals of caliber. Morgan Freeman, then living a particularly happy moment in his career, gives us a powerful job and Matthew Broderick does, in this film, the best work of his career to date.