Glory Review

Roger Ebert review
"Watching "Glory," I had one reccuring problem. I didn't understand why it had to be told so often from the point of view of the 54th's white commanding officer. Why did we see the black troops through his eyes - instead of seeing him through theirs? To put it another way, why does the top billing in this movie go to a white actor? I ask, not to be perverse, but because I consider this primarily a story about a black experience and do not know why it has to be seen largely through white eyes."

My paraphrase
Roger Ebert doesn't understand why the movie was narrated from a white man's point of view. He wants to be able to see the daily thoughts of the black man during this period of time and war. He is discouraged by the white man's narration in a movie about a black man's struggle. Why couldn't the story be narrated by the black man? It is also hard for him to understand how the white man was the most important actor when the movie was heavily based on the blacks fighting for independence. Why was the black actor not the most the most important actor? He just isn't able to connect to the blacks life during this time because it's told through a white man's eyes.