Posted on 03/04/2003 9:22:05 PM PST by stainlessbanner
The sweeping Civil War epic begins in early 1861 and continues through 1863, just prior to the Battle of Gettysburg. Focusing on the leadership of the Norths Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels), one of the Unions finest military leaders, and two extraordinary Confederate generals, Robert E. Lee (Robert Duvall) and Thomas Stonewall Jackson (Stephen Lang), the story examines in detail the strategies, sacrifices, and religious nature of these three men.
At 3 hours and 49 minutes, with a built-in 12-minute intermission, it is, alas, not a perfect film. Nearly every conversation in the first half has the characters speaking in platitudes. While this reads well in history books, in everyday conversation such dialogue often comes across as a bit heady especially if overused.
When Stonewall loses an arm in battle, for instance, Lee responds to the news with Jackson lost his left arm, and I have lost my right. Okay, that lofty quotation was actually said, but Duvalls general is given little to say other than such somber bon mots. There is simply no natural dialogue used to humanize Lee in this interpretation. The film gives the impression that if a cook had asked, General, do you want chicken tonight? Lee would have avoided a simple declarative yes or no in favor of a more esoteric response such as, If a soldier dies while supping, rest assured, his boots are polished. With such fortune cookie bromides, he begins to sound like Virginias answer to Charlie Chan.
Generals Jackson and Chamberlain also communicate as if they were being shadowed by documentarian Ken Burns. Certainly, these men were profound, their thoughts substantial, but the films verbal exchanges make them sound like walking monuments. They spout one melodramatic homily after another, with their adjutants listening intently, nodding as if it were a Zig Ziglar conference.
Writer/director Ron Maxwell, dedicated to realism down to the correct uniform buttons, incorrectly theorizes that the inclusion of every historic comment attributed to these men is necessary to pay a respectful homage. Profundity is generally more so when offered in small doses. In other words, less is more. And therein lies the films trouble its just too much: too verbose, too long and too politically correct.
There are three major conflicts represented in graphic detail. In actuality, these battles continued for days under the harshest of conditions. And Maxwell does his best to make those re-enactments last nearly as long. While I think one extended action sequence would have been sufficient to make the point, Maxwell makes sure his war-is-hell theme is not missed. But, Phil, its about the Civil War. Yes, but were not watching a war, were watching a movie. The art of moviemaking is generally more effective when its more controlled. Again, less could have been more.
My third problem, ironically, had to do with the spiritual insights derived from historical accounts of these men. Lee and Jackson, as well as most of the other central characters, were devout, Bible-toting, prayer-reciting upholders of the faith. Trouble is, the films spiritual emphasis seems forced rather than a revealing expression of Americas religious direction during that era. Superficial wouldnt be the correct adjective to describe the films theological representation, because it is done with a sincere effort on everyones part to relay Christianitys impact. Indeed, it is revealing as it shows the difference between that generation and todays social mores.
Perhaps the unreal feel of these resolutions rests with the actors themselves. Their delivery just wasnt convincing.
During the interviews, it was obvious that the actors were genuinely moved by the religious fervor of their characters. And though no Christian press member pointedly asked, Are you a Christian? those interviewed were certainly given opportunity to declare a statement of faith. But with the exception of director Maxwell and actress Donzaleigh Abernathy (daughter of civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy), a couple of cast members tended toward New Age philosophies, while the others remained noncommittal about their personal beliefs. One of the few things an actor cant fake is a spiritual revelation.
Well, there you have my difficulties with Ted Turner Pictures Gods and Generals. Not nearly as moving, enlightening or dramatically fulfilling as the PBS TV-documentary The Civil War of a few years back, Mr. Maxwells honorable attempt misses the mark by trying too darn hard to satisfy historians and mollify politically correct activists. But before you write this film off, read on.
Despite my frustration and what some might say picayune complaints, Gods and Generals stands as a thoughtful, perceptive history lesson that not only profiles the moral character of the men and women of that time, but also lavishly expounds on their religious convictions. Whats more, in the second half, the characters are allowed to become more human, adding dimension and resonance to the production.
I maintain that it could have been a better film. It should have been shorter and therefore more concise. And it should have been a touch more human and therefore more poignant. But it is a heartfelt film with an enlightening message. The production values, including the cinematography, art direction, and musical score, are each outstanding.
Want movies where spouses reflect a loving and loyal marital relationship? Want movies that lack profanity? Want movies that profess a reverence for God and exalt justice and honor? Then heres your chance to support one that does all that.
The movie is rated PG-13. It depicts wartime atrocities and sustained battle sequences, giving us insight into the torturous conditions both Yankees and Rebels were forced to endure. But it avoids the R-rating by subduing its gore and carnage. It makes a clear statement of the wrongs of slavery and how even good men can be blinded by evil.
Boatwright, of Thousand Oaks, Calif., reviews films from a Christian perspective.
I am disappointed in Mr. Boatwright's review. I thought the actors' portrayal of their characters was very convincing, especially Stephen Lang as General Jackson sat upon Little Sorrel and addressed the 1st Virginia.. Duvall played Lee just as I would have imagined, solemn, profound. Kali Rocha played Anna Jackson superbly, a strong and loving wife.
Director Ron Maxwell took great pains to present the movie as historically accurate as possible. The events, the weapons, uniforms, etc. were authentic. The battle scenes were tremendous and moving. Boatwright does not appear to appreciate any of authenticity, attention to detail, and amazing battle scenes.
Maxwell did not bow to the PC crowd, he stuck to his guns and made the movie as it should be. Boatwright seems to think the director "mollified" the PC police, but I believe Mr. Maxwell did just the opposite. In fact there isn't much I could find "politically correct" in the picture. Christianity and the American South are two of the biggest PC targets and Maxwell confronted them head on.
Perhaps the picture is a bit long, but those of us who study history couldn't get enough. G&G surely won't be enjoyed by everyone, but it ought to be regarded as an honorable piece of work.
The scene where Jackson and his cook (Jimmy?) are talking is a very moving scene. The General asks about his family and then both pray together, as Jackson often does, for safety, freedom, and blessing for their families.
This is true in some obvious senses, but less obviously so in some others.
Neither I nor most of my friends are particulary religious. But when we hear the Calvinist Biblical intonations of Bush's speeches about the War on Terror, we know immediately that This is Serious Business.
My point here is that, as good as the movie is in showing us Stonewall Jackson's (and Lee's) characters, it shows us something about the American character in general that's still true today. The part of the movie that brings it out best is Jackson's instructions to his adjutant to the effect that we must do our duty no matter what, and having done all we can to do right, the ultimate consequences, good or bad, success or failure, are God's responsibility. This is not fatalism: Jackson's character reminds us that we must do what's right. But we do not know if that is sufficient for success. It is an ingrained part of our character to try to do what is right and fair, but, as the children and grandchildren of immigrants and pioneers who risked all on an endeavor where success was not guaranteed, we also know that ultimately we are in the hands of Providence no matter how good our preparations or how fat the larder.
Jackson's (or Bush's) piety is not the Bible-thumping jingoism currently portrayed by the shallow atheists of the press. It is exactly the opposite. It is a profound determination to do what is right with the full knowledge that ultimate success will only come by the grace of Providence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.