Field of Lost Shoes

"Field of Lost Shoes" is far from perfect. After all, it's obvious that the folks making the film had a rather limited budget. In many scenes which should have featured many hundreds, only a few dozen are used. However, I don't necessarily see this as an awful thing. After all, the Battle of New Market is NOT the sort of thing that Hollywood would ever make a movie about, so of course the film isn't as fancy or has quite the look of a big production. I can look past this to a certain extent and think considering everything, the film actually looks pretty good.

As for the film apart from the low budget, it's okay...not great, but okay. Instead of focusing on the battle like a documentary, the filmmakers chose to include a lot of fictional subplots--some of which worked and some of which seemed a bit anachronistic (such as Southern students who believe in equality and hate slavery--not something you would have likely heard ANYONE say in the South at that time) or which just didn't work (the love story). I see it as a noble attempt and a reasonably good one at that. Worth seeing if you are a Civil War buff or love history. The ending was quite touching as well. Otherwise, there are a few better films about the era, such as "Glory". Hmmm....now that I think about it, there really AREN'T that many good films about the Civil War and this one is about as good as any...and not nearly as long and ponderous as "Gettysburg".

This is a film dedicated to the boys of the Virginia Military Institute who in May of 1864 answered the call from Confederate General Breckenridge to go to defend their homeland from the oncoming Union Army of General Ulysses S. Grant.

They were mere cadets of varying age and all went to fight at the Battle of Newmarket Gap. The film follows the plight of seven cadets and incorporates their back stories up to a point and the issues of slavery. The slavery aspect is used as the sole reason for the Civil War and is posted right up front. That kind of myth should really be stopped from any more propagation as the causes were never that simple and it is only with retrospect that the nobler cause of emancipation was ever used to justify the slaughter. Still I digress.

The film itself is rather good; it balances the comradeship and action perfectly and is filmed using real actors / re-enactors for the main battle which is also done very well. It is overly sentimental but then I am a sucker for such and never mind that at all. The title 'The Field of Lost Shoes' is in reference to the many that became unshod in the fog and mud of the battle. Noteworthy performances are aplenty - but Jason Isaacs as Breckenridge is extremely good at getting the Southern charm with steely resolution just right. All in all a film that war fans and indeed some history fans will appreciate.

What I assumed about this low budget period piece came true. Unfortunately its littered with problems from the production, story telling and pacing of the movie.. The noticeable civil war re-enactments embedded to the battle scenes took me right out of the movie and the long and establishment camera shots had terrible cgi. The one thing I did enjoy was the fact that all the cadets had different motivations for fighting in the civil war. If you're a civil war buff it's worth watching but I couldn't see myself viewing this more than once. The last positive thing I'll say about this movie is I enjoyed the score, especially towards the end while the battle is taking place.

Unlike the reviewer in "The Village Voice," I found this film to be moving and touchingly old fashioned. The "love at sight,' for example, between one of the cadets and a southern girl rings true and is a familiar, though often sad motif to those of us who work with teenage boys and girls. The jocular and sometimes hostile relations between the older boys seems authentic, as does their possessive and protective feelings toward the boyish 'Sir Rat.' To return for a moment to "The Village Voice" review: the arrogance and 'know it all' attitude of the reviewer toward the South reminded me why my southern relatives refer to this conflict as "The War of Northern Aggression." It is precisely this air of superiority which contributed to the Southern break with their brothers in the North. I do, however, find the modernist desire on the part of the producers to distance the cadets from their region's stance on slavery to be forced. I feel that history and a better story would have been served to portray the boys as fighting for Virginia and their nation, the Confederacy. Part of the southern lore surrounding the Battle of New Market is that Breckenridge wept when he ordered the cadets into battle. I can believe that he cried when he gave the order. What a terrible burden it would be to send boys into battle! I can't believe that the northerner commander would not have felt, at least, a twinge of conscience when he ordered his troops to fire upon and engage with the cadets. The film's portrayal of that man as a ruthless murderer ordering his men to kill boys does not ring true. The fact that the cadets fought like lions might have surprised him and his men--but those of us who have worked with this age group know that teenage boys would make fearsome opponents. In the end, I applaud the film makers for their efforts—they did much more than produce a period piece bedecked with false whiskers—they gave the viewer insight into this brave but terrible episode in the Civil War, or the War Between the States, as my southern relatives would ask me to write.

Some reasonable acting and fair writing around what should be a compelling story.

Yet the movie is far too preoccupied with telling a romanticized tale of war and death, fought by the Confederacy for the morally wrong reasons.