Civil War epic shut down by 'PC crowd'? 'Gods and Generals' a painful disappointment at B.O.

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Saturday, March 22, 2003 | Art Moore

[JohnHuang2]

The makers of the Civil War epic "Gods and Generals" believed they had a ready-made audience in people of faith who normally shun Hollywood for its celebration of immorality and ridicule of religion.

"Gods and Generals," released Feb. 21, is writer, producer and director Ron Maxwell's attempt to accurately recount a century-and-a-half-old chapter of American history that has not stopped inflaming discord. One obvious result of Maxwell's passion for historical fidelity is Confederate officers in their "full humanity," whose motivations, speech and actions arise from their devout Christian faith.

Stephen Lang as Gen. Stonewall Jackson and Robert Duvall as Gen. Robert E. Lee

Maxwell believes his "unorthodox" portrayal of the South and of unapologetic Christianity were not palatable to the majority of movie critics, who essentially "suppressed" the film with politically motivated reviews.

After four weekends, the $80 million, Ted Turner-financed film has been a painful disappointment at the box office, struggling now to reach $15 million in revenues.

Maxwell said in an interview with WorldNetDaily that he had expected the "PC," or politically correct, "crowd" to criticize the film, but not to such a deep, "hate-filled" extent.

"I'm not a conspiracy person," he said. "I don't see conspiracies behind everything that happens in life. But I suspect it was a collusion, if not a conspiracy – that people got on the e-mail or the phone and they said, 'Let's shut down this film.'"

Maxwell concludes that the regular moviegoers were turned off by a barrage of "vitriolic" negative reviews and concedes that "we have not been successful in convincing the people who have given up on Hollywood in general, that this is a movie that they would love."

"Look, I've had 30 years in this business," Maxwell said. "I've read a lot of reviews, and some of them are funny and dismissive. But I've never seen an effort [like this] to actually suppress a movie, to scare people away from it."

He pointed to noted critic Roger Ebert as an example, who began his review with "Here is a Civil War movie that Trent Lott might enjoy."

Maxwell said it's obvious that, in Ebert's mind, the name of the Mississippi lawmaker whose impertinent remarks cost him his Senate majority post is "code for racist."

"So that is [Ebert's] message?" asked Maxwell. "If you even consider seeing this film, you're a racist? That's a film review?"

Rotten tomatoes

"Gods and Generals" – starring Robert Duvall as Gen. Robert E. Lee and Stephen Lang as Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson – is a prequel to Maxwell's acclaimed 1993 film "Gettysburg."

Lang as Gen. Stonewall Jackson reading Scripture with Kali Rocha as his wife

His latest effort chronicles the two years of war leading up to the decisive Pennsylvania battle, paying close attention to Jackson and the Christian faith that animated his life as a legendary military commander and deeply devoted husband and father.

The website Rottentomatoes.com, which compiles movie reviews, counted 13 "fresh," or favorable, assessments of the film and 127 "rotten" ones.

Maxwell notes that the positive reviews were overwhelmingly enthusiastic, in some cases ranking "Gods and Generals" as one of the best historical films ever.

On the other end of the spectrum, however, were these examples:

• "A shameless apologia for the Confederacy as a divinely inspired crusade for faith, home and slave labor." – John Anderson, Newsday

• "Boring and bloated, this sanctimonious work will appeal only to warmongers and the religious right." –Boo Allen, Denton (Texas) Record Chronicle

• "It's like an old history cyclorama 'brought to life' with a mixture of wax, starch and pulped hymnals." –David Elliott, San Diego Union-Tribune

• "From the start Gods has a mighty wind of nostalgia and outright historical mythicizing that doesn't go down easily." –David Hunter, Hollywood Reporter

• "A lumpy three-and-a-half-hour glob of Civil War history." – Stephen Holden, New York Times

Most film critics have an ideological agenda, says Michael Medved, whose reviews appear weekly on WND.

"I have an ideological agenda as a critic," he said. "The difference is, I acknowledge it."

Medved contends that Ebert's opening line about Lott, and his "politically barbed comments about the ideology of the movie are telling."

"I think it tips the hand of a lot of the people who are giving extremely negative reviews to this film," he said.

"I believe there is a legitimate argument about whether the film is a complete success, and you can argue about whether it's too long, or about whether the narrative lacks momentum," he continued. "Those are legitimate points to make. But for people who are calling this one of the worst movies of the year, it's very obvious that they are allowing their left-wing ideology to trump everything about this film."

Medved gave the movie four out of four stars and believes it will hold out as one of the best films of 2003.

The San Diego Union-Tribune's Elliott told WND he doesn't think he and his colleagues had any ideological axe to grind.

"My review questions the film's merits as a piece of storytelling and simply as a film," he insisted. "I'm sure Maxwell can see critics don't have a big beef about the Civil War – it's been 140-some years, and I actually thought "Gettysburg" was a strong piece of work."

Nobody is against showing the heroism of Confederate soldiers he said, "but it's sad that a major film about Stonewall Jackson should make him into a pious statue."

Elliott said no one could argue that there was a strong Christian culture in that period, noting that President Lincoln's major addresses were full of references to God.

"It would be silly to quarrel with that," he said. "I just felt I was stuck in a church pew trying to watch the stained glass come to life."

Meanwhile, actor-director Mel Gibson believes an effort us underway to suppress his making of a film about the suffering, sacrificial death of Jesus, called "The Passion."

Earlier this month, the New York Times magazine criticized Gibson for his traditional Catholic views and for blaming Jews for the death of Jesus, though the actor subscribes to the orthodox Christian view that everyone is responsible.

Voting on Hollywood

Maxwell said he is certain there is a large audience that identifies with the values expressed in "Gods and Generals" that will enjoy it in "future incarnations" after its run on the silver screen. The DVD will be released this summer, followed by a foreign release, a showing on HBO at the end of the year and on Turners' TNT network six months later. In about two years, a six-hour director's cut will come out.

Lang as Gen. Stonewall Jackson

"I am personally disappointed that the potential audience – that will like this movie enormously when they see it broadcast on TV – didn't take the trouble to go to the movies," said Maxwell.

If you don't buy the tickets, he said, "you are abstaining from voting on what Hollywood does."

Maxwell believes that audience lost a "marvelous opportunity" to make a difference in Hollywood.

"Hollywood executives will look at this and say, You know what works? 'Old School.'"

The newly released film "Old School" is considered a sequel to the frat-house hits "American Pie" and "Animal House."

Maxwell emphasized, however, that "Gods and Generals" is still playing – though it is down from 1553 screens to 750 – and "word of mouth can still turn it around."

For instance, he said, "if 5 percent of the people who drive to church every Sunday went and saw this movie, it would turn it around."

Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission and publisher of Movieguide magazine, said he has tried to get out the word on "Gods and Generals" among Christian leaders, but many say things like, "We've heard it's not a good film," and "It's too long."

But, later, "when they do see it, they are enthusiastic," said Baehr.

"Despite the pleas of many church leaders, it's just not happening," said Maxwell. "You're dealing with ingrained habits; this part of the population does not go to the movies."

But Baehr, who is regularly in touch with church leaders and groups, is convinced that they do go to the movies and are affected by the reviews as much as anyone else.

"We need to be careful about who we listen to," he said. "It should be people who share our beliefs."

Baehr has received a considerable number of e-mails from Christians who say "I won't see any movie paid for by Ted Turner," though Turner gave Maxwell freedom to shape the film as he wished.

Medved said, "We ought to give all credit where credit is due to Ted Turner for his courage and generosity in funding this thing."

How they talked

Maxwell concedes that the length of the film – three hours, 49 minutes, including an intermission – has a "dampening effect" on box office receipts.

Depiction of Battle of Chancellorsville

"But not everything can be two hours," he said. "'Wayne's World' might work at two hours, but this is a huge story of the Civil War. Maybe it's a comment on how civilization in North America has changed – we're not willing to commit time to certain events, but a generation ago, it was not so."

Some criticize the film's dialogue as an endless series of high-minded speeches, rather than genuine human discourse.

Maxwell thinks this response arises because "we've had so many movies that pretend to be historical films where the people are, A., talking like we are talking now, which is totally false, and, B., they're reflecting modern attitudes, which is false."

The dialogue is based on extensive research.

"Now, nobody had tape recorders from that period, but we had clues … the letters, the journals, the reminiscences and the diaries," he said.

"It was a richer, broader vocabulary," Maxwell added, "and it was more of a verbal age, and now we're in a visual age."

Many critics don't have a problem with the movie, he asserted, they have a problem with "those people" portrayed in the film.

"They don't like those people," he said. "They don't like 'em then, and they don't like 'em now."

Paid a price

Ultimately, making money evidently was not Maxwell's primary motivation. To produce "Gettysburg," he had to go through his life savings, sell his house and then go into debt, while rejecting offers for other films that could have been turned around quickly at a profit. To make "Gods and Generals," he agreed to defer 75 percent of his salary as a writer, producer and director, but "clearly there aren't going to be any profits."

Ron Maxwell

"I'm not complaining, these are my choices, but I have paid an enormous financial price," he said.

"But I'm proud of the movies, I'm so glad they are there, and I think they will stand the test of time."

Maxwell said his motivation was to "to tell the story of that generation."

"I felt I was called to tell their story with fidelity," he said. "That's why there is no way in the world am I going to make these kinds of sacrifices and then lie about it and make it politically correct. Then I would have nothing to show at the end of the day, nothing for my time and energy and commitment."

Maxwell said production for the third film in the trilogy, "The Last Full Measure," will be put off indefinitely "because we have too far to go to recoup our investment."

He emphasized, though, that "Gods and Generals" is "out there despite the best efforts of the critics."

"Yes, they hurt us at the box office, no question about it," he said. They absolutely prevented me from seeing another penny from it; they prevented Ted Turner from getting his money back.

"But they were not successful at suppressing the film, because it will find other audiences and other venues over the years, and it will live long after those critics, and me, and you are done."

---

[PatrioticAmerican]

Perhaps people don't care to see 3 hour movies in a theater, but would rather see one at home on DVD?

[Mister Baredog]

It would creep me out to see someone tearing down our flag and replacing it with that of a bunch of rebels as well right now.

Gee I saw our flag being burned last night on local television, although I must admit it would not have bothered me at all if the cops had shot the guy doing it, free speach be damned.

[general_re]

From the sound of it, this just isn't a very good movie.

That's more or less what I was thinking - I haven't seen it, and now I don't think I want to either. Hollywood folks always like to ascribe failure to external causes - don't we all? - but the truth is that there are plenty of movies released that, for lack of a better word, "suck". G&G would hardly be the first movie to fall into the "overhyped junk" category.

[KneelBeforeZod]

hmm no offense, but if those are the best examples he can give... he is whining.

No Ebert? No Maslin? No one who is on TV anywhere?

Besides, a 3h39m movie isn't good for the family, dates, people with jobs, people that have to get home before dark.......

I looked on line and most of the comments say it is too long, needs an editor, needs to be trimmed, too long, needs to be cut down, too long, ponderous, too long...etc etc

Also most reviews seem to say that the dialog makes a Schwartenegger movie look like a David Mamet film.

[KneelBeforeZod]

"Look, I've had 30 years in this business," Maxwell said. "I've read a lot of reviews, and some of them are funny and dismissive. But I've never seen an effort [like this] to actually suppress a movie, to scare people away from it."

Guess he never read the review for any of the endless "gross out teen comedies"

[Terry Mross]

I have to believe that if God wante "Gods" to be a hit it would have been a hit.

On top of that they did very little marketing. The trailer was very good and would have enticed a lot more to go see it. But the only place I ever saw the trailer was on the internet from a link posted here at FreeRepublic.

I did see the movie and thought it was excellent.

[RicocheT]

"Did it occur to anyone that this is just bad timing?" This is a very good point. In down times, escapist entertainment does better than movies that require patience and focus to follow the story.

Gods and Generals takes place over a period of a couple of years and shows several battles, not one as did Gettysburg. G&G is still a good movie for history and war between the states aficionados, it will do well on DVD when that comes out.

[Grand Old Partisan]

You're exactly right. People are too patrioticc these days to watch a movie which glorifies southern Democrats who in the 1860s desecrated the U.S. flag and killed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. The treasous nature of the Democratic Party did not begin yesterday -- it goes back to the Civil War era and beyond.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

You're an old fool.

[God is good]

His target audience does not go to movies often...

I think you got it right here. If I watch a movie at all it's on video.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

and, if it weren't for the South, how would the Republican Party and our Country look right now? Does the term Solid South mean anything to you. Look at the electoral map if it doesn't.

[Dave S]

How about they made a monstrosity four hours long when most Americans dont have attention spans that last that long. The audience didnt buy it, so you blame the critics. Thats strange. Maybe people had better things to do than watch somone stare at the sky for minutes at a time. Prune it down to two and a half hours and maybe I would watch it.

[cb]

Two points. One, if a reviewer likes it, I worry. If he loves it, I stay away. Experience.

Second, I saw this movie because I read that it was a RARE example of truth on screen. In my view it accurately portrayed the civil war as taught in my university(Texas) before political correctness turned it into a racist war that was "just about the slaves".

I was surprised at the religous aspects of the film which protrayed southern commanders as very religous and northern as not religous but moralistic(at least those not intent on looting).

I worried about the length, but it moved along and frankly I prefer films that thoroughly cover the subject even if they are long. I think of Lonesome Dove, and the 6hour version of Dune versus the hollywood two hour version.

I look forward to ultimately acquiring the fully twelve or so hours cronicalling the Civil War in its entirety. I'm sorry that the people who invested in the truth, as usual, are being punished.

[Grand Old Partisan]

If it weren't for the Republican party today, the USA would look like Europe. If it were not for the Republican Party of the 1860s, the USA would not exist at all.

The South remained solidly Democrat for a century after the Civil War, as electoral maps of previous elections clearly show. The 1860 Republican candidate got ZERO votes in ten of the soon-to-be rebel states, and every single person elected to Congress (though none were seated) in 1865 by the former rebel states was a Democrat.

[Paleo Conservative]

I'm sorry, but the prospect of sitting in a movie theater for 180 minutes kept this Civil War buff away.

It's actually closer to 220 minutes plus an intermission. It's not a great movie, but it's not a bad one either.

[Paleo Conservative]

I look forward to ultimately acquiring the fully twelve or so hours cronicalling the Civil War in its entirety. I'm sorry that the people who invested in the truth, as usual, are being punished.

Don't you mean the battles fought by the Army of Northern Virginia? It didn't even cover the western campaigns. In fact it didn't cover Peninsula Campaign or Antietam which were major battles fought by that army in 1862.

[Godebert]

"People are too patrioticc these days to watch a movie which glorifies southern Democrats who in the 1860s desecrated the U.S. flag and killed hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops. The treasous nature of the Democratic Party did not begin yesterday -- it goes back to the Civil War era and beyond. "

The South has always been the REAL America. You're just to much of a blue-zone socialist to see it. Maybe this 2000 electoral map will help you to understand which area of the country is inhabited by marxist-liberal traitors.

[Non-Sequitur]

I'm sorry but a bad movie is a bad movie regardless of subject. And "Gods and Generals", sad to say, was a bad movie. I loved the book, I like studying about the period, but for God's sake they spent more time on that lame 'Bonnie Blue Flag' scene than on Bull Run. I don't know what Turner was trying to do with this turkey.

[Godebert]

"I'm sorry but a bad movie is a bad movie regardless of subject. And "Gods and Generals", sad to say, was a bad movie."

About what I'd expect from one of this forum's liberal, Southern-bashing trolls. I doubt you even saw the movie. BTW.......Your leader, Whiskey Papa has been outed as a Gore Voter.

[Inyo-Mono]

It was only shown in select theatres. If I were to see it I would have to drive 125 miles. It needs wider distribution

I agree, I would have to drive 200 miles to see it.