For my event, I went to meditation Monday in the Langmuir lounge. There was not much in terms of action when it comes to this event. To be quite honest it was really just some quite time to just sit and do nothing. This is not to say that this event was a waste of time. In fact, I would say that this was a very enlightening thing to do. It is very easy in life to be sweep up in the ever roaring chaos that is modern life. Between social media and work, particularly school work for college kids, we always have so much going through our minds. This is why this hour of self-meditation is so nice. If you really commit to the meditation, it clears your mind of all the nonsense that is constantly bombarding it and you finish the session feeling way more rested and focused than when you go in. Overall this was a neat little activity that I have no regrets attending. I would even encourage other to try meditation, especially with the  stress that finals bring.

American Sniper is the story of Navy Seal sniper Chris Kyle. Kyle is known for being the “most lethal sniper” that the U.S. military has ever seen. Chris Kyle exemplifies what it means to be a leader. On and off the battlefield we see time and time again, we see Kyle prove himself as a great leader.

Very early on in the movie there is a scene with Chris Kyle as a boy taking to his father at the dinner table. His father explains to him that there are three different kinds of people in this world, the sheep, the wolf and the sheepdog. The sheep represents the innocent people that try to live their lives without thinking about the evils that are out there. The wolves are the people that pray on the weaker people for their own benefit. The sheepdogs are those that feel the need to protect the weak from those that seek to hurt them. Chris Kyle is the embodiment of the sheepdog. In the film we see Kyle as he commits his entire life to protecting those that can’t protect themselves. This dedication to his task is one of the many examples of Chris being an extraordinary leader. In his quest to fight for what he believes in, we see Kyle make so many sacrifices. If there is a job that needs to be done, Chris Kyle will be the first to sign up for it. At times, it almost seems that he no longer cares about his own well-being and solely focuses on the well-being of the people around him. Another major sacrifice we see that Kyle makes for the greater good is the fact that he continues to go back to war for tour after tour even though he has done more than his fair share of active duty. He just couldn’t walk away from a job that he felt was undone.

Another great example of superior leadership shown by Chris Kyle is something that most people might not expect or think about often. This act of leadership I’m talking about is when Chris Kyle finally decides to go home. Constantly fighting in a war to the extent that Chris Kyle did during his military career can really take its toll on a person. It got so bad for Chris Kyle that by the end he just couldn’t take the pressure anymore and he had a mental breakdown on the battlefield. He then quickly stepped away from the military and let someone else do the fighting. Chris may have wanted to do more, but at the mental state that he was at, he might not have had much more he could have gave. Chris did what any reasonable leader would do and stepped down from his leadership position when he was no longer the optimal person to be the leader in that situation anymore. There was also another reason why it was important for Chris Kyle to return home is so that he may be a leader for his family. Being a leader in the military separated Kyle from his family. He needed to go back for them as much as he needed to go back for himself.

His service in the military was not the end of Kyle’s leadership. As I said in the previous paragraph Kyle became a leader for his family. However, he also found another way to find be a leader outside of the doing tour after tour in the Middle East. He took the initiative to help fellow soldiers who have returned home and suffer from PTSD. This goes to show that leadership doesn’t have to end. Just become he does fight wars anymore it doesn’t mean that he is no longer a sheepdog. He has stayed decided that his time is better spent helping those that fought the same fight he did and didn’t come out as fortunate. Chris Kyle may have met and unfortunate death through his leadership initiative, but he was a true leader to the very end.

Chris Kyle is truly an amazing individual. He is a natural leader whose leadership skills are unparalleled. Through the film American Sniper, we got a look at these great examples of leadership and through some of the lessons we learn from the life story of Chris Kyle, we can become better leaders in our everyday lives.

Lone Survivor and Saving Private Ryan are war films that are involve a group of soldiers that are sent out on a mission only for things to go very wrong. Through their struggles on the battlefield, the film-makers give the viewer an in depth look at the interpersonal connections between soldiers in battle. The men that we see in Lone Survivor are very different then the men in Saving Private Ryan Saving Private Ryan. However, there are common threads between the two groups that represent the commonality between all soldiers in a combat situation.

All people have different relationships with one another. This can be seen by comparing the groups of soldiers in the two movies. One noticeable difference between the two groups is how they talked to one another. In Saving Private Ryan the conversations seemed to be more relaxed than with the Lone survivor crew. Many jokes were thrown at each other and everyone spoke their mind at all most of the time. On the other hand, the Lone Survivor crew was very serious. Their conversations were always brief and to the point, especially when on the job. They were not afraid to throw around insults when on the military base, but the battlefield was a different story. This difference on the conversation leads us into the how they conducted their respective missions. The Lone Survivor crew was definitely the more efficient at doing this. They were very by the book. They did everything exactly as they were dictated by either command or general laws about warfare. A good example of this is how they released the goat herders even though they would undoubtedly give away their location, because they were just unarmed civilians. This is something the Saving Private Ryan probably wouldn’t have done. They are more lose when it comes to military discipline. This is not to say that they are bad at performing their job, but they don’t do it as the higher ups would see fit. This can be seen in the scenes where they try to rescue a couple of kids during a battle or when they almost executed a surrendered soldier and were only talked out of it when they the translator stepped in. The last noticeable difference between the interactions between the two groups is the way that they treated each other based on rank. One might think based on everything previously said that the Lone Survivor crew had a bigger emphasis on rank, but actually it is the opposite. The only person that is set apart in the Saving private Ryan crew is the lieutenant. However, while watching the Lone Survivor group, it is sometimes hard to determine who outranks who.

These have some major difference in the way that they interact with each other, they have common threads that tie them together. In reality it is more like one big overarching tie between the groups. This tie is their brotherhood. The men is both groups have an undying bond with one another. They fight side by side and are willing to do whatever is necessary to keep the man standing next to them safe. We see both groups sacrifice for each other on multiple occasions. One example is when one man in the Lone Survivor groups crawls to high ground to send a message requesting assistance only to be killed in the process. The Saving Private Ryan group sacrificed everything at the end of the movie to make sure the Ryan made it home alive.

Both groups of men interact in different ways. They speak differently, act differently and live very different lifestyles. I would reason that I someone would be hard pressed to find two groups of guys that acted exactly the same when placed in a war scenario. However, when people are placed in a war situation there is one thing that you can count on most of the time, brotherhood. In these tough situations men will come together and form bonds greater than any other to ensure that every makes it out alive. As we see, not everyone makes it out, but we also see that they damn sure try their hardest.

The film Black Hawk Down was a movie that focused mostly on the soldiers that serve our country in the military. In the film we get to see the struggle that they go through first hand when a plan to extract prisoners from enemy territory goes extremely bad. The mission that was supposed to be a thirty minute in and out deal turned into a major ordeal that lasted for hours when one black hawk helicopter was shot down by advisories. During this time we get to know a lot about the struggles that soldiers have to face when everything just goes badly. The one struggle that is truly explored is the relationship between looking out for all of your fellow soldiers and preserving the soldiers that are not in any sort of danger. This comes as real gray area in this movie as to what is the right course of action and what is just getting more men injured or killed than needed. This is something that the soldiers will have to face many times in this movie.

From the beginning of the film, it is clear to see that there is a strong relationship between all of the other soldiers. Before the battle that is to ensue, they all seem to be very happy in each other’s company at the barracks. They definitely fulfill the cliché that soldier become like brothers to one another. However, their happy and optimistic moods that they have at the barracks are going to change and change fast. When the men are first deployed to go on this mission, they are all very optimistic and treat it kind of like a joke. When they get there, things go badly right away when a soldier fall out of the helicopter. Immediately all of the men in the area are sanding in the line of fire trying to get the wounded soldier the care that he needs.

It only get worse from there when the black hawk is shot down. Although it only makes the mission longer than expected and more dangerous, they are ordered to go and secure the helicopter and get the men inside the helicopter out of the warzone. Without really flinching the men take up this extra task because they believe strongly that no men should get left behind. Things only manage to get worse, the convoy traveling through the city is taking major fire, another black hawk goes down and the bodies of the wounded and the dead start to pile up. For a while they continue to do everything they can to defend their fellow soldiers. However, eventually it becomes apparent that this is not working as the convoy is forced to go back and regroup as they have taken too many casualties.

We now start to see other soldiers questioning the actions being taken because it is only causing many more people than needed to get killed. However, no matter how questionable the plan is, there is no lack of volunteers going out to try to recover everyone from this mess that has been created. Many more men die out on the battlefield before the end of the movie. This leaves us with one question is wake of hell that transpired in the city. Should they have risked so much for the lives of a few men in the helicopter? Because of their attempts to secure the helicopter, exponentially more men were wounded or killed than if they had just gotten out of the city as fast as they possibly could, making no risks. If we look at the numbers, this makes sense. You complete the mission saving as many lives as possible with the sacrifice of a few men and a helicopter. Unfortunately, just looking at the numbers is not good enough in this situation because it is not the only factor. The factor the really drives the decision throughout Black Hawk Down is the men. All of the men have an obligation to each other to bring them back alive or dead. They do this because that is what they would expect of everyone else if they were in that situation. By following this code, it creates a strong bond between all the men and allows them to operate as a more efficient force. Following these moral reasons instead of pure numbers is why this mess transpired in the first place. Despite all the extra bloodshed, the soldiers picked to stay true to their moral standing and I’m sure none of them regret that decision.

There is always going to be a struggle between the military and the general population of the United States of America. Ultimately the civilians of the United States are the ones pulling the strings of the entire armed forces. This fact does not always make those serving in the military happy. This situation is explore in the movie A Few Good Men.

                Those that serve in the in the military do so in order to protect the freedoms and lives of the American population. However, what happens when those you are trying to protect are the ones that get in way of the course of action that you deem to be the most effective to do that job. This is the case that is faced in the A Few Good Men. In the film we see two marines facing life in prison for the unfortunate death of a fellow marine when they were acting on an order that would seem unethical and morally wrong to the general public. Instead of those in charge taking the hit and looking bad for demanding such an action to take place despite being told by superior powers that such action were not to be allowed, they pin murder on the two men that carried out the deed. This mess of a case is the result of struggle between the military and the civilian population.

There is no real way to understand the mindset and agendas of someone fighting for their country in the military other than actually joining the military itself. When put in the situation that those serving in the military are put in everyday, it is easy to see how you would begin to think differently than a common person and adopt a different set of values and morals to abide by. Those in the military can use methods and take action that would be looked down upon in everyday American society. They do not do these things to make lives worse. In reality they take these actions to ensure that they perform their jobs better and keep as many people alive as possible. If they didn’t see any benefit to an action I doubt they would even consider taking it. The civilians that watch from afar don’t understand the way that the individuals of the military think and feel. An action that is standard practice such as the “code red” talked about in the movie seem extreme and terrible to the civilians that aren’t there to see the true purpose. However, since the civilians hold the power over the military, they tell the military what and what not is acceptable and end up holding the military back from doing their jobs as they see fit.

There is not much we can do about this tension between civilians and the military. As I see it we could see it we could either allow the military to do things autonomously or we can have people be require to serve a minimum term in the military so that they can better understand the values and morals of the soldiers that serve on the front lines. For whatever reason I can’t see people being happy about being signed up for the military whether they like it or not. Then there is the fact that is the civilians withdrawal control of the military, there are no checks stopping them from splitting so far from the morals of the U.S. that they stop fighting for the country’s interests and start fighting for their own interests. The military has the chance to become its own organization that has no allegiance to any country.  So we are stuck between a rock and a hard place and it doesn’t look like the tension between civilians and the military is going away anytime soon.

     Throughout this course, we have seen many different films about war. Our most recent film,Glory, is a very recent movie about cavalry men in Germany during the World War 2. From the first few minutes of the film, it is clear to see that this film is very different in style to all of the other films that we have watched in this class. When we really step back and look at the films we have watched so far, we can see that the way war has been portrayed in Hollywood has changed dramatically.

     Fury is a very dark and dirty take on a war movie. Throughout the entire movie we see some of the absolute worst qualities and parts about war. We see many civilians dying, brutal soldiers, and men fighting to stay alive constantly. We also see the innocence of a young man destroyed as he is forced to fight in tank with a group of war hardened tanker that do not flinch at the horrors of war. The whole tone of this movie is just depressing. Everything from music to the colors in each scene just leave the viewer with sense of hopelessness and desperation. The only glimpse of happiness comes towards the end of the movie when the team of soldiers in the tank are bonding together. However, this does not last long as soon after they are placed in the middle of an epic fight where only one man makes it out alive. There is no happy ending to this movie, only the bleak and terrible reality that is war.

     When we look at some of the older movies that we have watched, such as Patton and A Bridge Too Far, we see a much different picture of war than we do in Fury. These older movies seem to be much more patriotic than the war movie of today. Seriously, is there anything that screams America like General Patton standing on a stage in his decorated uniform in front of a gigantic American flag. If that isn’t patriotic I don’t  know what is. In Fury, there is no sense of patriotism at all. The soldiers don’t really have this strong bond to America like the soldiers portray in Patton and A Bridge Too Far. The soldiers in Glory have alliance to each other and don’t seem to care about the bigger picture.  These older movie seemed to be focused on war heroes. For most of these movies we are following Generals and other high ranking military. These are the men whose names would be all over the papers for helping to the the war. This is much different than in Fury. In Fury, we focus all our attention on the on the lower ranked soldier. In Fury, the highest ranked person in the main cast is only Sergeant. The last noticeable difference is that the older war movies seem to glory war. When the troops are going into battle in the older movies , we it is a triumphant and positive. The music playing in the background is very grand and upbeat making the viewer happier. This is definitely not the case in Fury. If anything all the sad music and terrible imagery in movie would make the viewer detest war. This change is most likely due to the fact that these older movies were created shortly after World War 2 and America was still proud of their military dominance. Modern day America sees mostly the downfall of war.

      We can see the transition from these glamorized war movies to these bleak war wars when we look at Saving Private Ryan. This movie came out somewhere in the middle of these two extremes and it shows. While Saving Private Ryan still calls upon some of the patriotic aspects of the older war movies, you can definitely see that the movie is trying to create a darker and realistic look at the front lines of war. Some of the battle scenes in Saving Private Ryan get very intense and effect the emotions of the viewer. However, there is still a relatively positive ending to the movie that keeps the viewer from leaving the movie depressed.

     As you can see there has been a huge shift in the way that Hollywood portrays war in the movies. Although there is a huge difference in these war movies, they are all good and their own way and have valid points to make about war itself.

There are many internal conflicts that can come when it comes to service in the military. Perhaps one of the most prevalent is the conflict between following orders and keeping yourself out of harm’s way. Nobody wants to go into war and die for their country, but they do it anyway because that is what is expected of them. It is a very interesting dilemma that comes with military service that each soldier has to overcome and find his own answer to. There is no clear line between two sides, and for most they have to be satisfied with being somewhere in the gray area with their actions. This internal struggle is explored in Steven Spielberg’s classic movie, Saving Private Ryan.

This movie is about a team of soldiers that are sent on a mission to find soldier named James Ryan after his three brothers died in combat. The team sent to rescue him are faced with the conflict of self-preservation versus conflict on a level that is greater than just going into battle. When someone goes into battle, they are fighter for the bigger picture, to win a war for their country and the ideals that they believe in. However, this team of soldiers is sent on a dangerous mission to find one guy and send him home when they are going to be the ones that may lose their lives in the process. All the men in the group handle this situation a little differently. At the beginning of the mission they all question the judgment of the higher ups in the military that are sending them on this mission in the first place. They do not feel sympathy for the situation of the Ryan family because they have a huge chance of dying for one guy. Usually the case is the few are sacrificing for the needs of the many, but is this case the many are sacrificing their lives for one men. The only person that is not complaining about the task at hand is Captain Miller. He keeps his head high and is willing to do what he is commanded even though he might not like it. This is what makes Miller an impressive leader. He does not let his soldiers see any fear or loathing of the situation, which will keep them motivated to do their job.

As the mission continues on, the men start on a downward spiral. As they watch their fellow soldiers they become more frustrated with the mission. They even seem to resent Private Ryan despite never even meeting the man before. Even Captain Miller, shows some signs of weakness. A notable scene is when he talk about his justification for the soldiers that die under his command. He says that even though his men are dying, he likes to think that by doing so exponentially more lives are saved. How is he going justify the death of his men for one life? He also states that Private Ryan “better be worth it”. Another scene that shows the frustration of the groups is when they beat up on a Nazi soldier that surrendered after the loss of another friend in combat. It is only Captain Miller that is able to make a rational decision and let the man go.

At the very end of the film, the group finds Private Ryan defending a bridge with another group of soldiers. Despite the fact that they tell him that his brothers have died and that he can go home, he wants to stay to defend the bridge at least until reinforcements arrive to help secure the bridge. Private Ryan in this situation has chosen to fulfil his mission and put his life on this line instead of taking the ride home insuring his safety. The men with Captain Miller are not exactly happy with this answer, but there is a moment of realization and the men agree that they will help with the mission. Most of the men, including Captain Miller die in protection of the bridge. By the end of the film, it is clear to see that no matter how much you want to run and hide from a situation, sometimes you just need to do what you are ordered and hope that it is worth it in the bigger picture. This was clearly Captain Miller’s last thoughts as he tell Ryan “earn it”.

Steven Spielberg made Saving Private Ryan more than your typical war movie. It was a real statement about the struggle between sacrifice and self-preservation endured by soldiers. The soldiers responsible for the rescue of Private Ryan seemed to have reasoned that sacrifice to accomplish their orders was worth it in the end. Was this the better choice? This is a question that each ask has to ask themselves when faced with this struggle as old as war itself.

                A Bridge Too far is an exceptional war movie about failed operation to attack the Nazis during World War 2. In this film we see many proficient leaders. Among these leader were the Airborne Commanders, Taylor, Gavin, Urquhart, and Sosabowski. These men are distinct from one another, yet there are still similarities to be found among them.

The first man that is explored is Major General Urquhart. From the first moment that we meet him on the screen, we know that General Urquhart is no laughing matter.  He also has a very serious demeanor and command the respect of the people around him. However, he also has somewhat of a humorous side when he jokes that he is prone to airsickness, but he is in command of an airborne attack. This joke also goes to show how dedicated he is. Even though he is not that fond of flying, he is going to do it anyway because he likes to carry out his duties to the best of his ability. This resilience and desire to finished the jobs that he is given can be seen at the end of the movie as well when he is disappointed after nine day effort failed after the original plan which was only supposed to take two days failed. Despite the failure of the plan Urquhart was unsatisfied with this result especially after watching so many of his men die.

The next commander that we will talk about is Major General Gavin. Gavin was an experience airborne commander unlike his counterpart Urquhart making him and excellent choice to be a part of this military campaign. Like Urquhart, Gavin knew that they had the odds stacked against them when it came to this mission, but he carried on anyway. Gavin also seemed more combat oriented than Urquhart. Urquhart mostly led his troop from outside of the battle, while Gavin was on the front lines working right next to his men. It is also worth noting that Gavin also cared about the lives of his soldiers, sometimes seemingly more than his fellow commanders.

Next up is General Taylor. Taylor was great leader in his own right. There are few things that we can gather about Taylor from the film. One thing is that he is an excellent diplomat. The way that he able to speak to others is a talent that the other three generals would have a hard time competing in. Other than that, Taylor seemed to fit into the trend of caring about the safety and well-being of the soldiers in this seemingly unwinnable situation that everybody has been placed in.

Lastly, we come to General Sosabowski. He was the first one to have a problem with the plan for the attack. He immediately recognized that the task was not as easy as it seemed on paper. The Nazis were not going to give up the bridges without a serious fight. However flawed the plan was, he request that he was dropped into the fray of battle when the troops needed reinforcements. This shows how brave and daring that he really was. It takes quite a man to being willing to sacrifice so much for the greater good.

It is clear to see that all four of these men are great leaders in their own right. Each of them is unique and choses to lead in their own way. Although they are different, this does not stop any of them from getting the results that any good leader wants to see.

                Gettysburg is a fantastic war film that takes you back to one of the most important battles of the Civil War, the Battle of Gettysburg. One of the things that can be said about the film is that it does a great job of portraying the military leaders of the involved in the battle. There was a wide variety of leaders from both sides, each with their own personalities and characteristics. Two of the more interesting leaders of this battle were Colonel Chamberlin of the 20^th Maine and the General Robert E. Lee of the Confederate Army. These esteemed military leaders have many similarities and differences that can be seen throughout the movie.

General Lee and Colonel Chamberlin share many different characteristics as seen throughout the movie. First of all both men are excellent military strategists. Many times during the film, you can see their strategy expertise in action. Lee is always formulating plans for the best way to engage the enemy and Chamberlin can be seen changing the formation of his men to ensure victory at a crucial battle. Both men are also heavily respect by the men that serve for them. Their men rally around them in a time of war when many people would probably run for their lives. Especially for General Lee, he seemed to have his own cult of personality. Lastly, General Lee and Colonel Chamberlin are two men that believe very deeply in their moral. Lee believes in his cause of fighting for states right, while Chamberlin believes in the freedoms of all men. These morals and ideas that these men hold are what keep them in the fight. They will not quit as long as there is something they believe in to be fought for.

General Lee and Colonel Chamberlin also have their fair share of difference. Lee and Chamberlin differ in the ways that they present themselves to their men. Lee is very stoic. He literally sit on his “high horse”, showing very little emotion and always calculating his next move or order. On the other hand Chamberlin is very down to earth. He presents himself as being no better than any other man in the army. He even makes a thing of getting off of his horse and marching with his men. This leads into the differences in the way that they gained the respect from their men that was mentioned previously. Lee gains the respect through his superiority. He proves is respected because to them he is almost a god. Chamberlin on the other hand is very personable. He has different relationships with his men and these mutual relationships cause them to respect his opinions and orders when it comes time to fight. Chamberlin and Lee also differ in the way that they deploy military strategy. Lee is a great thinker. He likes to have as much knowledge as he possible can before he is willing to make a plan and carry through with it. On the other hand, Chamberlin only comes up with and employs strategy in spur of the moment situations. For instance, his change of defensive tactics on Little Round Hill. The last and most apparent difference that can be seen is the way that they handle suggestion. Chamberlin is a reasonable man, he is willing to hear out other people and take their suggestion into consideration. However, Lee is unwilling to do anything that he didn’t think of. On multiple occasions throughout the film other general in his army suggested alternate plans for attacking the Federal Army, but he dismissed all of these ideas to follow his own plan. This stubbornness was Lee’s fatal flaw when he marched is troops into a battle that everyone predicted that they will lose but him. As a result of his stubborn attitude, the rebels suffer a terrible defeat at the Battle of Gettysburg.

There are many characteristics that can used to describe General Lee and Colonel Chamberlin. Some of them are very similar, and some of them are very different. This is very well portrayed in the film Gettysburg. However, as different they may be, without a doubt these men are some of the greatest military leaders of American history.

Glory is an excellent film that delves into the story of the 54^th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry during the American Civil war. This regiment led by Col. Robert Shaw was among the first African-American regiments to see combat for the Union in the civil war. The film itself focuses on the theme of diversity and implications that diversity has when it is mixed with the structure of the U.S. military.

When it comes to the military, everything is very structured. Everybody has their place and they are do as instructed. People in the military do not see a lot of change in the way that their everyday lives are carried out. However, diversification is a huge change in standard on goings for people in the military. Before the Civil War, many people would have never dreamed of a black regiment fighting for the United States. I’m sure many people didn’t know how to react to the, at the time insane, idea of the 54^th being comprised of black soldiers. As one could expect, people tended to be very resistant of the change or simple did not know how to act. In the beginning of the film, Col. Shaw did not really know how to connect with his men. The culture of the free black men was so different than anything that Col. Shaw probably had ever experienced before. He doesn’t really understand the struggles that they have, so at first he becomes this very strict leader who sole focus is to change the men that he is command of. This doesn’t work for Col. Shaw because it only makes his soldiers hate him, because to them he is almost no better than a slave master. However, through his time in command of the 54^th he learns more about his soldiers and they become actually people to him. He no longer treats them differently than he would any other men. This aspect of the movie shows that diversification is a difficult process to do successfully, especially when you consider the very strict system that is the military. When you create diversification where it wasn’t previously, people are going to resist the change. It is just the natural reaction for people. Any deviation from the known is scary. However, the benefit of diversification is so great that it is worth the leap of faith.

The second aspect of diversification that Glory takes on is the great benefit that it brings. When an organization, like the military, is diversified you are able to get the best of so many different types of people. For instance, in the movie, the passion and the dedication that the black soldiers have was useful to the army. The officers leading the 54^th were able to harness that determination and create a deadly regiment out of men who had no previous war experience. Diversification was not only beneficial when it came to people of different races, but just different people in general. When you combine so many different type of people under the same flag, you will be able to combine all the good aspects of different people. Integration also proves that no one type of person makes a good soldier. Throughout the movie we see many different personalities, yet all of them in their own way became good soldiers.

The movie Glory was able to portray diversity in the military in such a natural way. It was not only able to show the seemingly unnatural process of integration, but also many of the good things that come from an integrated army as well.

Citation:

     Glory. Directed by Edward Zwick. Performed by Matthew Broderick, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Raymond St. Jacques. United States: Tri-Star Pictures, 1989.