Bad cause is wrongly glorified [Gods and Generals bashing mutates into Bush bashing]

Richmond Times-Dispatch ^ | Today | Michael Paul Williams

[Maedhros]

Watching "Gods and Generals" over the weekend made me wonder about our enduring effort to elevate man's inhumanity to man to something virtuous.

This ponderous Civil War epic is hagiography disguised as history - unabashedly rev erential toward its subjects and permeated by an unmistakable Southern bias.

[Maedhros]

This guy is the "minority affairs" writer at my local paper, which he uses New York Slimes-style as a license to write these ridiculous liberal opinion pieces which end up nowhere near the editorial page (which is actually fairly conservative).

These "columns" always take as their starting point some issue of interest to the black community, and then degenerate into shilling for some liberal cause that only Je$$e Jacka$$ could love, such as affirmative action, quotas, etc. Lately his target has been G. W. Bush, which of course makes peacenik whining de rigeur.

BTW, if anyone wants to email him, as some did to my local movie critic on the previous Gods and Generals thread, be my guest. If enough people mention FR, he might be sufficiently annoyed to mention us next Monday in his "column," since, after all, he writes about whatever he damn well pleases.

[Restorer]

Watching Confederate Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson alternate between pious prayer and bloodthirsty exhortations to "give them the bayonet," I wondered if the filmmaker considered how such zealotry might stray dangerously close to the rhetoric of jihad?

How can I put this politely? The fimmaker did not invent this. He was, apparently, faithful to an accurate portrayal of Thomas Jackson. He really was very pious and a remarkably bad man to be opposing in combat.

Why does the author find this so hard to believe? Perhaps because religion has been driven into the background in recent decades.

BTW, religion had almost nothing to do with the WBTS, except for the solace it gave. Men of all Christian and Jewish persuasions fought on both sides.

[EllaMinnow]

He must be incredibly stupid. Or are they showing the movie in Richmond with all the Hancock and Chamberlain scenes removed?
What a maroon.

[tet68]

Actually, the filmmakers offered little insight into why such a reputedly noble man would choose such a reckless, destructive and morally indefensible course.

Although it's certainly better than being a revisionist
movie critic.


Did you notice he was only "reputedly noble"?

No southerner today can be considered noble, it wouldn't fit the agenda.

[Reo]

Wrong on the Bush-bashing, but the author is pretty dead-on with the movie review. Saw it last night and it was a real Union-bashing pro-South 3 1/2 hour diatribe. Funniest part was watching Ted Turner in the background as an extra trying to steal a scene from Robert Duvall.

[RAT Patrol]

Saw it last night and it was a real Union-bashing pro-South 3 1/2 hour diatribe. No way. The movie clearly depicted the moral superiority of the Union on the issue of slavery. No question! But that wasn't the only issue.

[Lauratealeaf]

Location: Minnesota...Up North in the Lake Country

Yep! It figures. You're a Yankee. I saw the very same movie last night and my eyes saw something different....a movie that didn't paint the southerners as monsters. One that actually portrayed the south truthfully. (The Yankees did invade the south, not the other way around) I hope you enjoyed the popcorn.

[aristeides]

I wonder what this guy Williams thinks of the morality of the American Revolution. After all, in that war too the central power that was resisting secession (the Brits in that case) offered freedom to slaves as a tactic in fighting the revolutionary secessionists.

[clintonh8r]

I sent Michael an email mentioning that his, uh, "review" was posted on FR, and that I expected that he has inadvertently boosted attendance. I wll find it refreshing to see a history movie that isn't revisionist. (I love to drive lefties crazy).

[xzins]

Why should this author read the books by Jeff Shaara?

Because they are the basis of the books. The books are about the WAR....about the personalities of the WAR, and how those personalities affected the WAR effort, decisions, everything.

It's very important to know that Stonewall Jackson was both extremely pious and extremely prone to fix bayonets and charge. He is why the WAR was won for so long by the South. Stonewall would drive men great distances and to herculean effort just to outflank an enemy and surprise him.

It's all part of the war.

Let's not gloss over who the men were. Let's not put false words in the mouth of Southerners, nor false words in the mouth of northerners.

Let's show that war, warts and all!

[Wait4Truth]

It seems to me that word has gone out from the DNC - no matter what the issue, no matter what the cause, find a way to blame it on the President. This tactic, in my opinion (humble as it is), will fail.

[Magoo]

The good part is that with that "Style" of writing most liberals will not read past the first sentence or two, so he is ranting to hear himself rant.

[Lauratealeaf]

Then again, "Gods and Generals" is a portrayal of events rather than an exploration of motives. Watching opposing lines of soldiers march heedlessly across corpse-littered battlefields, I couldn't help wondering: Where are you taking me?

That this clueless African American can ask this question is unbelievable. Where did they take him??? To freedom!

[Magoo]

There is a thread on Roger Ebert's review which is also politically charged. Our society is clearly so stigmatized by political correctness that many of us cannot even fathom what life was really like back then. Many here have had trouble with the dialouge of the movie, much of which was extracted from original sources of the 1860's.

[AnAmericanMother]

I see the Times-Disgrace is still at it up there.

My husband is from RIC, and his mama still lives there.

[KeyLargo]

Considering that Ted Turner put this movie out I was wondering how it ended up not being totally PC?

[sauropod]

This guy is a schmuck. He would not recognize virtuousness if it reared up and bit him in the a**.

[Verginius Rufus]

Saw it last night and it was a real Union-bashing pro-South 3 1/2 hour diatribe.

Do you mean there's something wrong with that?

[NewRomeTacitus]

Turner had the best part in "Gettysburg" when he hollered "Let's get 'em, boys!" then fell over going "Aaargh!" That's exactly the type of cameo that neo-Communist actors should be pursuing.
By the way: the film maker has stated that this version of the movie is the film company's and HIS version will be available on DVD. I'll wait.

[uncbob]

The movie clearly depicted the moral superiority of the Union on the issue of slavery.

I guess they didn't show Grant's slaves

North fought to save the Union