'Gods and Generals' ... and an angry Mayor Dow

When George Ewert , director of the Museum of Mobile, wrote a stinging movie review of the Civil War film "Gods and Generals," he likely did not expect an equally harsh critique from Mayor Mike Dow .

"'Gods and Generals' is part of a growing movement that seeks to rewrite the history of the American South, downplaying slavery and the economic system that it sustained. In museums, schools and city council chambers, white neo-Confederates are hard at work in an effort to have popular memory trump historical accuracy," the city employee wrote.

And this: "It is cloying and melo dramatic, and its still characters give an endless series of ponderous, stilted speeches about God, man and war."

In turn, Dow was not kind to Ewert, reprimanding the city employee in a Friday letter. The mayor called Ewert's review unnecessarily strongly worded, inflammatory and counterproductive.

"Why, in your very public position with all the local 'Southern Heritage' controversy that city leaders have had to manage and after several years of a hard-fought political calming of this issue, would you inject yourself so strongly and carelessly into this topic in this manner?" the mayor wrote.

"I need for you to use your better judgment and please cease and desist publishing potentially inflammatory articles of this nature without your board chairman's or my awareness and approval. Leave that to others who have less to do."

The city, particularly Dow, has come under fire in the past from Southern heritage groups claiming unfair treatment.

Ewert's review was printed in the Southern Poverty Law Center's Intelligence Report. The Montgomery-based organization's Intelligence Project monitors hate groups and extremist activities.

At the end of the movie review, there is a line that notes Ewert's position with the city.

Mobile City Council President Reggie Copeland also scolded Ewert, saying at last week's council meeting that he "would accept nothing less than a public apology. ... I am very displeased with that gentleman, and I want some action taken."

Copeland made the comments after hearing about the review but before reading it. He later told the Mobile Register that the review was "not as strong as I thought it would have been. ... I just wish he would have kept his mouth shut."

Ewert, contacted last week, declined comment except to say that he would be preparing a statement for Dow. In a letter to Dow dated Oct. 9 -- one day before Dow's letter -- Ewert said the review was written in his capacity as a historian and private individual.

"I regret that anyone may have taken my comments in a 'personal' matter," Ewert wrote. "My intent was not to offend but to offer a legitimate criticism and context for the movie in question, a privilege that should by rights be open to anyone. If, again, there were those who were offended by the movie review, I offer my apologies."

Area veterinarian Ben George , a Confederate Battle Flag and Confederate-heritage advocate, praised Dow for his response to the review. But George said Ewert did not apologize and should resign or be fired.

"He (Ewert) shot somebody; he said he's going to shoot somebody again," George said.

George in the past has made himself something of a thorn in Dow's side, organizing demonstrations in front of Dow's house, plastering posters criticizing the mayor during the last city election and using other tactics to push his Confederate heritage agenda.

George complained to Dow after reading Ewert's article. "My staff and I have had to deal with an unnecessary and increased fallout as a result of your article," Dow stated in his letter to Ewert.

George compared the situation to the firing of a Mobile police officer, accused of using the n-word and expressing a lack of interest in helping evacuate public housing residents in case of flooding.

Ewert, like the police officer, George said, has proven himself intolerant toward part of Mobile's population, namely Confederate heritage proponents like himself.

George said he and several others planned to speak at Tuesday's City Council meeting about Ewert's comments, along with concerns that Dow has not kept his word on settling previous disputes. But, he said, the speakers may reconsider.

Thanks for the ping. Here is what I posted back in March. Nothing I have read here causes me to change my opinion:

Civil War epic shut down by 'PC crowd'?

Posted by nathanbedford to Continental Op
On News/Activism 03/22/2003 9:32 PM EST #28 of 67

GODS AND GENERALS is the Robert Bork of movies. It is significant in the history of film. And it is certainly historically significant in the history of film criticism.
The film is historically significant because it is faithful to its time; It is unashamedly Christian; It does not compromise its vision to Hollywood contrivance. In short, the movie is grounded in integrity.

Robert Bork was a significant figure in the history of the judicial nomination process. He was faithful to his coservative philosophy, he did not compromise to pander for votes, he too had integrity.

The "borking" of his nomination has corrupted the constitutionally mandated confirmation process for a generation. It was replicated in a slightly modified form in the Clarence Thomas confirmation and it has modified like a virus to erupt once again in the Estrada nomination.

Say what you like about the left, they know a mortal enemy when they see one and they know how to react like a demon at an exorcism.

So they crucified Bork.

They tried to electronically lynch Thomas.

They are trying to filibuster Estrada to death and in the process they are forever distorting the constitution.

Now the left, ever acute to threats to its survival must crucify GODS AND GENERALS. The director is right: These reviews are ideologically motivated (although not conspiratorial - they don't need to corrodinate becaus it comes naturally) not just to denigrate the film but to destroy it. They do that by telling you that you are a fool if you find it moving, poignant, compelling or edifying. If christian piety as portrayed in this film does not strike you as bizarre you are a fool. If open, unselfconscous profession of faith (or patriotism - it matters not) do not make you unconfortable, you are a bumklin. If you draw physical courage and serenity from your faith, you are a Phillistine or are at least in need of a bath.

So they set out not just to criticize the movie, but to devalue it, to so put it beyond the pael that it can never be credited. They will crucify it so that it can never rise again, even in DVD form. I believe they will fail in this because I believe ultimately in good over evil. This movie will be seen as a major and important treatment of the time which is artistically significant because it is historically true. Unlike its reviewers or Bork's Senators, it has integrity.

I had this to say in a previous post:

I find this cant about the length of this movie more tedious than any 4 hour film. The shallowness of the observation is reminiscent of the scene in AMADEUS wherein Mozart is told by the king that his music has " too many notes." Either a film is long enough to tell the intended story or it is not. Either it is good or bad but it is never bad merely because it is too long and it is never good because it is short. It must, like Little Red Riding Hood's porrige, be just right and that is determined by length needed to tell the story the film maker intended to tell.

The problem is the critics do not want you to see, hear or know the story as it is told. More, they do not want you to accept any part of this version of the story. So they do what the left usually does, they change the rules of the game. The film maker here is obviously asking to be judged in the historical context of the time. The critics object to the movie because the treatment does not fit their time warp.

These objections are ideoligically motivated. The left, in the context of George Bush's unselfconscious Christian piety, cannot pass benediction on a time and place where it was the norm for such Christian committment to animate reasonable and compelling historical characters to exraordinary nobility.

So the Borking of GODS AND GENERALS proceeds apace.

Throw a bone to the South, Non - they had a profitable, effective postal system.

Not only that but they had only one Postmaster General througout their existence - one of only two cabinet offices that did not go through secretary after secretary.

But lets look at the mercantilist agenda of the American system - internal improvements, railroad subsidies, centralized banking, the greenback dollar, corporate welfare, protectionism, special interest groups.

Stainless, read the confederate constitution. It existed to protect the most influential special interest group in the south - the plantation agriculture industry. Nothing was allowed to interfere with their markets or promote industry or impose a cost on them that was not required to maintain their business and lifestyle.

Here's an British view of the EP...

Here are some more:

"...a gigantic stride in the paths of Christian and civilized progress - the turning point in the history of the American commonwealth - an act only second in courage and probable results to the Declaration of Independence" -- London Morning Star, October 6, 1862

"The Emancipation Proclamation has done more for us here than all our former victories and all our diplomacy. It is creating an almost convulsive reaction in our favor all over this country." -- Henry Adams, January 23, 1863

The Emancipation Proclamation "...has had a powerful effect on our newspapers and politicians. It has closed the mouths of those who have been advocating the side of the South. Recognition of the South, by England, whilst it bases itself on Negro slavery, is an impossibility." - Richard Cobden, MP,

After watching Gods and Generals this weekend for the fifth time, I think it is a wonderful film.

I'm glad you liked it, but the structure was very lame.

Look at "Gone with the Wind". It has a typical American movie structure. Thirty minutes of intro, and a change (the inciting incident in some books, entering "the special world" according to Joseph Campbell in "The Hero with a Thousand Faces").

What is this special world in GWTW? It's when Scarlett leaves Tara for Atlanta. What was it in "Apollo 13"? When they blast off for the Moon. Both these events occur about 30 minutes into the movie. G&G ignores this pacing. Typical American film structure has the second main plot point about 30 minutes from the -end- of the film. In GWTW, this was the death of Bonnie. In "Apollo 13" it's when they prepare for splashdown. They are -definitely- leaving the special world. You can apply this paradigm to movie after movie after movie. In the very first "Star Wars" Luke leaves his home, flying out on the millinium Falcon, in the 1978 "Superman" it's when Clark leaves home for Metropolis. G&G blew all that off. It's a poor movie by any objective standard, if the standard is to tell a good story.

Walt

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.