Replies

"Where's the bald-faced greed of the Southern generals, who were willing to risk everything to maintain a luxurious existence on the backs of millions of blacks?"

Sorry, I just don't think greed was a motivator, at least not as we use the word today. Certainly some Southern generals owned plantations and slaves, but they were protecting out of a sense that that was their way of life they were protecting, not because they were greedy. The concept just doesn't fit.

Nor does it fit with the idea that they were "willing to risk everything" to maintain a "luxurious existence." How did he even come up with that line of thought? There is no doubt that these people understood that NOT defending their homes would be the end their way of life. This guy has everything upside down.

Anyway, I too saw the movie, and have seldom been more impressed. I've been to other moves where I walked and felt more "blown away," but there are several reasons for that. Having seen Gettysburg and having read the reviews for G&G, there was little I did not already know. What impressed me was that the movie was so muli-dimensional and with so many facets. The cinimescope, the hisory, the culture, the personalities, story, politics, the theology, on and on. Someimes there were so many elements coming together at one time it was overwhelming. In that sense, it was one of the greatest movies I've seen.

As for me, I'm glad they did not dwell on Bobby Lee more than they did as I think Duvall's portrayal would have fallen underneath the weight of the real Lee's legend. And I wish that the Chamberlain character had been more fully developed as a balance to Jackon/Lang. And, I'm sorry folks, but there can be only one reason that Lang was at least seriously discussed as an Academey Award nominee -- because he did such a damn good job making devotion look relevant and NORMAL.

People who call themselves film critics but couldn't find anything to like about G&G simply are too blinded by their liberal/anti-religious/Southernphobic biases to admit the obvious -- Lang's depiction of Jackson was one of the finest pieces of acting ever performed. That the Jackson charater did not come off looking like a smarmmy, religious nut case is the proof -- and they can't stand it.

That the Jackson charater did not come off looking like a smarmmy, religious nut case is the proof -- and they can't stand it.

I thought he did come off as a smamry religious nut -- one who was unwilling to face the stark contrast between the golden rule and serving the Confederate slaveholderocracy. He reminded me of the modern day drug warriors and Isama bin Ladens of the world who insist that they are the most religious of all men while liberally spreading evil all over the land.

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.

...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.