Civil War epic shut down by 'PC crowd'?

[giotto]

There's no conspiracy. Most people just don't want to see serious movies. Just take a look at the huge box office successes: Austin Powers, Dumb and Dumber, that idiot Adam Sandler's movies (I couldn't even name one if I tried), Spiderman. People want fantasy, stupid comedy, anything that takes their minds off their own reality for 90 minutes, without requiring them to think or pay attention for too long. My policy is that I don't tend to watch movies I've never seen before. But I'll probably see this one.

[nutmeg]

My husband and I want to see this movie, but haven't been able to budget the necessary 4 hours on the weekends since it has opened.

[SanFranRepublican]

when i saw Turner's name, i thought the same. but, whatever the motivation, i give him credit for putting his money behind this worthy production.

*also worth reading about 'Gods & Generals':
http://www.washtimes.com/arts/20030222-84213802.htm
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=6236

the salient point for seeing this movie is as the article suggests: to show your support for director Maxwell and his efforts to create a movie that reminds us, as Americans, of our history...bruises and all.

tremendous sacrifices were made to shape our great nation and, to keep us honest, we, as Americans, should sometimes reflect on the past.

Hollywood watches profitability. leftist critics play censors. we, the audience, should remind the that we're paying the salaries.

which leads me to the Oscars, and their treasonous lot....but, alas, that's another topic, for another thread....

[Sans-Culotte]

It was either arrogance or stupidity on Maxwell's part to think that he could refrain from EDITING

That is the big problem with the movie. I thought Gettysburg needed tighter editing, too. Maxwell lingers over too much. Like the scene in Gettysburg where Lee rides amongst the men to great acclaim. It is a powerful moment, but Maxwell doesn't understand the law of diminishing returns. He holds the scene about twice as long as he needs to. In the Pickett's Charge sequence, the preparation takes as long as the charge, and then the charge itself takes forever. He seems to think he has to film all the seqquences in real time. As a result, several scenes were cut from Gettysburg that were needed to advance the story (Lee's scene with Ewell, for example).

In G & G, his tendency to let things go on too long, and to include unnecesary scenes, were very damaging to the film. For instance, we didn't need to see Stonewall's farewell to the Stonewall Brigade. Also, the book on which the film was based (which is way better than the movie), concentrated equally on Lee, Jackson, Chamberlain and Hancock, but it appears that Maxwell decided to concentrate almost entirely on Jackson. The film may as well have been called Mighty Stonewall, to borrow the title of a well-known Jackson biography. Stephen Lang was fabulous as Jackson, but I wish they had included more of Jackson's peculiarities and eccentricities.

Overall, I'd give the movie 2-1/2 to 3 stars, because I'm a history buff, and the recreation of the battle of Fredericksburg alone made it worthwile for me. I will get the DVD. The move is no Citizen Kane, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.. The movie does have some powerful moments. I guess this is a film in which the sum of the parts is greater than the whole.

BTW, I do think some of the reviews did overstress the PC viewpoint, particularly Ebert's.

[Sans-Culotte]

Cutting, it needed. The film should have focused on Jackson, which would have meant that the Valley campaign, the Peninsula campaign, and 2nd Bull Run, and Antietam would hsve had to be worked in, requiring much more compression. Also his relations with other commanders. And how does one make a film about the war in Virginia while ignoring Jefferson Davis and Johnston?

Remeber that the movie was based on a novel, and the novel did not include much of those things. Because the novel concentrated on two Union and two Confederate characters in the main, the story was advanced in other ways.

[evilC]

I actually saw this in a free preview a few months ago.

If you like Civil War or other historical stories you may like this.

If you are looking for rousing drama like The Patriot you will be disappointed. Sadly it felt every bit of its 3½ hour length.

[Ursus arctos horribilis]

The PC crowd have demonized it the same as "Ride With The Devil" Which portrayed the part of pro-southern Missourians in the civil war.

I am from Missouri and have extensively read the history of the civil war and it's aftermath on that part of the country. It was the closest movie in realism I have ever seen for our own American Balkans.

In 1895 they were still back shooting and murdering each other, don't ever think it cannot happen again.

[nathanbedford]

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.

[RobbyS]

The film did not have this balance anyway.

[small voice in the wilderness]

My husband and I went last Saturday and we thought it was great. Started looking everywhere for Gettysburg, the sequel. We finally found it on Amazon.com, and excitedly put it on tonight.

...martin sheen as Robert E. Lee...OMG...:*sigh*...

....martin sheen as Robert E. Lee..........

[carlo3b]

The problem is that this is a crappy movie.

Sorry my friend, I loved it, and so has everyone I sent to see this great movie. I could see this movie ten more times, and I say it as a collector of civil war documents, and first person accounts of the affairs surrounding the war.

[Paleo Conservative]

I look for Ebert's reviews...If he doesn't like it, it's going to be a good movie...

He's gone off the deep end since Siskel died, and his review have gotten much more political. You are correct. I read his highly negative review, and determined I should see the movie even if Ted Turner produced it .

[nonliberal]

I don't think there is a conspiracy here. The film just was not that good.

[envision]

"Gods and Generals" is a stunningly outstanding film. It is truly sad if folks, especially Christians, have stayed away from this film. It is a deeply American, deeply spiritual, deeply heroic film.

Too long? Anyone who's thrilled to the uncut Seven Samari (it also has an intermission, or two) would find the objection unfathomable. Did kids stay away from the recent Harry Potter movie because it was too long?

Unnatural dialog? The US popular-culture speech styles of individuals presently aged 10-28 isn't how people talked 140 years ago. (Or 40 years ago.) The speech of that time has its own unique charm and dignity, appropriate to its time and place. Being incapable of appreciating it is no virtue.

[LS]

Oh, I thoroughly agree that the PC/leftist crowd hated it BECAUSE it was essentially emphasizing Christianity, heroism, and presented the Southern point of view well. No question.

But I am in total agreement with you about the Gettysburg "acclaimation" scene---idiotic. Also, the "Stonewall" death scene took almost as long to kill him as it did in real life!

You know, everyone raved about Lang as Jackson, but I thought he was better as Pickett. BTW, I just finished reading "Last Full Measure" and thought it was fantastic.

[LS]

Well, you raise good points. How do you skip Antietam?

But I do think there is a reason NOT to metion Jeff Davis: you can tell the story of the Confederacy without him, but you cannot tell the story of the Union without Lincoln, and I think that is what was missing from this picture. The Confed/Rebel viewpoint was well done, and fairly presented. I don't really think the Union perspective was---Daniels was not as good in this movie as in Gettysburg, but I guess he'll have another shot in "Last Full Measure."

[envision]

"It was either arrogance or stupidity on Maxwell's part to think that he could refrain from EDITING. Even Thomas Jefferson needed editors for the Dec. of Independence. I hope in "Last Full Measure" he finds an excellent editor, and makes the movie that the third part of this trilogy deserves."

I have read that the "director's cut" of this film is six hours long. I look forward to seeing it some day.

I recall a book "When the Shooting Stops ... The Editing Begins", came out in the 70's. Written by a film editor. He related a story about a famous film reviewer savaging a film, making all kinds of disparaging remarks about the editing. The reviewer had absolutely no clue what he was talking about.

[Restorer]

I'm glad you enjoyed it.

I didn't object to any of the things the PC crowd stated as their reasons for running the movie down.

I thought they did an excellent job of portraying the often affectionate relationship between blacks and whites, as well as the very nearly complete blindness of the whites to the immorality of their position.

I especially thought it was interesting that they did not gloss over Jackson's genuine interest in waging a war of no quarter against the northern invaders. Something not often mentioned today. That he was overruled meant we didn't have a truly vicious civil war.

[JimNtexas]

As a life long history buff, of course I saw the movie. I enjoyed a lot of it. But let's face it. As a movie, it wasn't very good.

It was far too biased in favor the South. Yankee sympathizers such as myself were put off by this aspect of the film. The almost pro-slavery blacks were over the top. Why they couldn't follow the even-handed model of 'Gettysburg' is beyond me.

The long long long drawn out little story of Jackson and history's most articulate five year old girl was so cornball that it was embarressing.

This is not a movie for general audiences, it's for history buff, especially the ones holding on to their confederate money.

It's not as good as 'Gettysburg', and can't hold the coat of 'Glory'.

[Valin]

In Gettysburg he was covering three days, in Gods and Generals he's trying to cover three years.
It's my opinion that unless you are a history nut you will feel every minute of this movie. I await the dvd in the hope that they spend more time on the period before the war and that little skirmish in Md.