Languorous 'Gods and Generals' hurt by too little substance

Pittsburgh Tribune-Review ^ | February 21, 2003 | Michael Machoskey

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The first Civil War movie of consequence, D.W. Griffith's heroic and horrific masterpiece, "Birth of a Nation," was an electrifying polemic that demonized the North and the slaves, and glorified the Klan.

Yet, for all of "Birth of a Nation's" moral faults, the subject made for exciting cinema. President Woodrow Wilson remarked that it was "like history written with lightning."

[Positive]

I went to see it at a matinee last week.

The battle scenes were "realistic" without being disgusting.

Lang really "stole" the scenes in the role of General Thomas "Stone Wall" Jackson - you had to get the since of the real Jackson.

The entire movie exudes authenticity as far as the human interactions are concerned.

Long (4ish hours- with an intermission) - but if you can find the time it's a must see. Remember the little square screen at home is not where you want to see this - this is one of those movies that needs and deserves a "Big Screen."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

You just can't please all the people all of the time. It can't be done. Everyone views history through their own lens.

Judging from all the books written about the Civil War, it has been covered from every angle and from every point of view. I thought it was a good movie and as expected will be enjoyed again through dissection and a by-product of that is more insight and reflection.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

one of those movies that needs and deserves a "Big Screen."

And a few hankies.

[Stonewall Jackson]

To compare the movie with actual historical events is like saying Rush Limbaugh is a news reporter. The sensationalism and personality of Rush keeps his audience. Movie makers have always had to embellish their works. More so now as we have a generation that is too lazy to actually do the research to see what is real and what is fake.

Have a blessed day.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[M.K. Borders]

And I wish that the Chamberlain character had been more fully developed as a balance to Jackon/Lang.

I have yet to see the movie, but I have heard this comment alot.
I think it needs to be pointed out that although the real Chamberlain was an amazing leader and fighter, that all came later. At the time of the of this movie Chamberlain as a soldier had not yet fully developed, he was a no-body. That would change later, but at this time period, it would have been wrong to focus on him.

[tm22721]

I went to see it for the battle of Chancellorsville (The Wilderness) since we live only 30 minutes away. That's all I can recommend from this movie.

The rest of it is a sermon and 'sux big time' as my teen age son delared just before he walked out at intermission.

BUMP

[Lee'sGhost]

In reading through your bookmarks and website I see that you fit into the category of Southernphobe, so your opinion does not surprise me. To equate the Jackson character to bin Ladens of the world is silly and lacking of any intellectual analysis. I also suspect you have God issues as well.

[Lee'sGhost]

"It seems very apparent that the Confederates who opposed slavery simply succumbed to peer pressure and ended up walking off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings."

Such extreme statements show your extreme bias. I suspect most Southerners who opposed slavery (or at least recognized it's evilness) were resigned to accepting it much the same way we accept the unlawful federal income tax or the misguided election of Senators by popular vote rather than appointment by state governments and prescribed by the Constitution. Some things are just so ingrained and beyond a person's scope to do anything about it, you just accept it.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Millions of Northerners opposed slavery in 1860 . . ."

I'd like to know how you know that? Maybe millions did oppse it, but I suspect most could care less as it did not effect them directly. I also suspect that most of the Union soldiers were not in the Army because they wanted to free slaves. This is the mumbo jumbo of revisionist history.

[Lee'sGhost]

"How exactly would slavery "melt away" when it was essentially adding the equivalent of about $100,000 (in today's dollars) on average to the wealth of each Southern family."

Ignoring for the moment that it was such Southern wealth that the Northern power structure resented more that anything actually to do with the slaves themselves, let me address the arrogance of such thinking.

The institution of slavery in the North, where it began, slowly died out for economic reasons -- not because of some higher moral calling. The same economics would have eventually caught up with the South as well. It would take longer bec of it's agrarian economy and scope of slavery itself, but 20th Century modernization would have brough it's eventual demise as well. It is arrogant to think that Northerners were somehow better people than thouse in South and thus the basis for them not having slaves. That's simply not true.

[ladtx]

...Lang's depiction of Jackson was one of the finest pieces of acting ever performed.

I agree totally, as does my wife. We both were blown away by his protrayal of Jackson. He deserves an academy award, but probably will not get it because he portrayed a southerner on the "wrong side" of the war.

Once I have seen a movie I generally do not care to see it again no matter how good. But this one I would see again.

[Lee'sGhost]

Greetings from a fellow (peace time, thank God) Army vet and a true admirer of Texas -- second only to North Carolina. Knew a lot of Texans during my four years. Most of 'em were true patriots and keepers of Southern heritage. I'll thrown in with you guys any day.

Hell of a movie. I will definitely be getting the 6-hr directors cut when it comes out.

[RogueIsland]

Notice how Robert E. Lee's remarks on slavery were not at all sympathetic to the negro slaves (eg. "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary").

It should be noted the Lee's opinions of the Negro (to use the language of the time) changed during the course of the war as well. He was impressed with the valor and discipline of the colored regiments of the North, IIRC, and that experience served to alter his opinions more positively over time.

[ladtx]

Greetings from a fellow (peace time, thank God) Army vet and a true admirer of Texas ...

Glad to meet you, I've seen and admired your posts here for some time.

I'm a son of Texas and the south. Part of my family came here during the days of the Republic, leaving Virginia after the Revolution, thru North Carolina, Kentucky and Arkansas arriving here in the early 1840's. Some came right after the Civil War thru the port of Galveston from Alsace. All on my dads side. My mother side were all germans from the northern tier and we try not to hold that "agin 'em".

[Lee'sGhost]

I'm come from Georgia penal colony stock on my father's side and Virginia on my mother's.

I guess you've heard about the upcoming remake of The Alamo. If not, prepare to commence a slow burn.

[ladtx]

I've read some about it. Don't know what the motivation is to try to sully an event that is the epitome of human courage and sacrifice.

[Polybius]

Those are very convenient assumptions for him and for you, but they are totally unsupported by history. How exactly would slavery "melt away" when it was essentially adding the equivalent of about $100,000 (in today's dollars) on average to the wealth of each Southern family (and much more to the wealthiest and most politically powerful in the South)?<

Of each Souhthern family? Where do you come up with such a number when most Southern families could not afford to own slaves?

Slavery melting away in Western nations is unsupported by history? When the time came in 1888, the Brazilians passed the Lei Áurea and abolished slavery without the fire-eaters on both sides of the issue unleashing the dogs of war.

So, how are Christian men such as Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson supposed to acquire your 20/20, year 2003 moral and historical hindsight regarding the future of slavery in 1861?

All they had to do was read Tocqueville's Democracy in America, which was published in 1840.

You did not answer my question. My question was: If Mr. Lincoln was actively promoting the first version of the 13th Amendment that would have protected slavery within the Constitution, how could Lee and Jackson know in 1861 that defending Virginia from an Army raised by Mr. Lincoln had anything to do with the abolition of slavery in Virginia?

My copies of Tocqueville's Democracy in America never mention a single word about someone named Abraham Lincoln or what wheels were turning in his political mind.

And, even if they did know what was in Lincoln's future mind, why would they agree to have the law of the land changed through the bayonet from the North rather than through the ballot box in the South?

If he didn't want to fight against his neighbors and relatives, he could have chosen to remain neutral by sitting out the war.

Lee, indeed, did not want to fight his "neighbors", be they Southern or Northern. When he was offered command of the Union Army, Lee declined and resigned his U.S. commission. He then went back to Virginia and wrote that he "would never again raise his sword except for the defense of his native Virginia."

There is a huge difference between not fighting your family and neighbors and sitting idly by and not raising a finger to protect them when they are attacked by outsiders.

[Polybius]

I'm not "judging" anyone --

Sorry. I forgot one.

Comparing Stonewall Jackson to Osama bin Ladin is not "judging"? You could have fooled me.

[ravinson]

In reading through your bookmarks and website I see that you fit into the category of Southernphobe..

That's nonsense. I spent some very enjoyable time living in the South when I was in college. Fortunately (and unlike you), most Southerners don't identify with the Confederate slaveholdocracy.

To equate the Jackson character to bin Ladens of the world is silly and lacking of any intellectual analysis.

I didn't equate them, I merely compared them by pointing out that both used their religious beliefs (perhaps sincerely held) to justify their evil causes.