Posted on 03/22/2003 4:54:16 PM PST by Continental Op
Interestingly, I read that Duvall turned down Gettysburg because he wanted more money than they offered. I wish he had turned it down in Gods and Generals, too.
G&G has no strong story line, no development of character -- what screen writers call the "character arc." There was no clear protagonist, although Jackson got a lot of screen time. The protagonist in a classic American film will have a stated goal. Rhett Butler wanted to hear Scarlett say she loved him. Scarlett wanted never to be hungry again. Luke Skywalker wanted to "go to Alderan and become a Jedi like my father." Jim Lovell in "Apollo 13" wanted to walk on the moon.
You can see this in any number of films. Then typically, the protagonist (sometimes defined as the character who undergoes the most change during the story) is presented with a series of challenges, which he/she then overcomes. "Apollo 13" offers a great example of this. The one crewman is sick, an engine malfunctions during lift-off, the docking to the LEM is a challenge, after the explosion they might not have enough power, they have to align the capsule manually, the parachutes might not open, there is a storm in the recovery area, and so forth.
Once in a while, the protagonist is presented in full form and doesn't really grow or change. "Patton" is an example of this. Patton is pretty much the same from the beginning of the film to the end, but that is hard to pull off.
G&G had none of that. It was just a bad film, from what I understand is a bad book.
Walt
What on earth are you talking about, Walt? Jackson had a goal in that movie. You just don't like what that goal was - "drive the yankee invaders from our sacred land."
What on earth are you talking about, Walt? Jackson had a goal in that movie. You just don't like what that goal was - "drive the yankee invaders from our sacred land."
Well, that didn't happen, did it? That's bad on its face. How can you enjoy a movie where the goal is a miserable failure that leads to generations of poverty and backwardness?
And how did what the movie's exposition set the stage for Jackson's goal?
Remember in "Apollo 13" when Deke Slayton said, "If he can't dock that thing, we don't have a mission." It was plain how that incident (docking the command module/lunar module) in the movie tied into the goal.
How did the battles of First Manassas and Fredericksburg support Jackson's "goal"? How did skipping Antietam altogether help exposit how the goal was to be accomplished?
Another example from "Apollo 13":
They've lost power in the command module and you hear the voice of Jim Lovell (paraphrased) saying "We have to transfer the gimbal angles to the LEM computer or we'll be flying blind." See how that exposition moves the story forward? The goal (to be shortly abandoned) is to get to the moon. When that goal was abandoned, again it is brought out in the exposition -- the old goal is replaced with a new goal -- getting back alive. I didn't see anything in G&G (I left not long after the intermission) that supported good story telling or effective exposition.
Now of course Jackson is not destined to see the end of the film. He is killed. That is not necessarily a bad thing for a movie as movie. You can watch any movie on Joan of Arc; she will burn every time. But you can still enjoy a movie on that subject if it is set up properly -- say if Joan's goal is to maintain her faith in God in the face of all adversity. You can leave the theater with a good feeling and an enjoyable experience.
Look at "Road to Perdition." That is a very good film. But Tom Hanks' character is killed at the end. We are asked, as an audience, to accept the death of the main character because he got to really get to know and love his son, and his son got to know his previously unapproachable father. We also see Hanks' character change from the gang hit man to concerned father -- he had a character arc. To me, it was a stretch that this was good or positive since they only had a few weeks on the run together, but that is what the writer was asking the audience to accept. I didn't see anything in G&G that would engage me on that level. Remember in "Gettysburg", where Longstreet says to Lee, "Your goal was to drive them out in the open, and well, they are in the open." The exposition advanced the story. "Gettysburg" was a satisfying movie experience, if tinged with great sadness. G&G is just a hodge-podge of scenes thrown together.
Walt
And Jim Lovell didn't walk on the moon.
How can you enjoy a movie where the goal is a miserable failure that leads to generations of poverty and backwardness?
As I said previously, Walt. Contrary to your assertion, Jackson had a goal in that movie. You just don't like what that goal was. The above statement proves this to be the case with you. It also proves that you do not dislike the movie on merited reasons but rather because it does not bash the south.
Remember in "Apollo 13" when Deke Slayton said, "If he can't dock that thing, we don't have a mission." It was plain how that incident (docking the command module/lunar module) in the movie tied into the goal.
Yep, but that goal - getting to the moon - went nevertheless unachieved for other reasons that happened later.
How did the battles of First Manassas and Fredericksburg support Jackson's "goal"?
If the goal was to "drive the yankees from our land," both battles were thwarts upon the yankee invasion of that land that halted it and pushed it back. Same goes for Chancellorsville.
How did skipping Antietam altogether help exposit how the goal was to be accomplished?
The very nature of the movie did not permit time to cover all major battles, Walt. You know that. Had they done so it could have easily been six or seven hours instead of four. I am not certain, but have read that some of the others will be on the extended DVD version.
And Jim Lovell didn't walk on the moon. No, and as "Apollo 13" is an excellent example of the movie story paradigm, he later says, "let's just try and get home." His goal changed.
I didn't see the end of G&G, but did Jackson ever say anything like, "I don't so much care about the outcome of the war, as I have done my duty," or "I've done God's will," or something like that? Did he say such in real life?
If he only said the goal was to drive out the Yankees, it's hard to make much positive out of that, because the Yankees were not driven out. Unless you love the USA, of course.
Things are a bit different when you have historical figures, but the rules of story telling are immutable. Remember in "Patton", Patton says, "All my life I've wanted to lead a lot of men in a desperate battle. Now I am going to do it."
And he did. And he continued to do that for the rest of the movie, and it was effective and "Patton" is a great movie. G&G is a poor movie.
You'd argue with a sign post.
Walt
If the goal was to "drive the yankees from our land," both battles were thwarts upon the yankee invasion of that land that halted it and pushed it back. Same goes for Chancellorsville.
But the exposition, the give and take between the characters did not show that. Remember in "Gettysburg" how General Buford said, "we have to hold the high ground or there will be the devil to pay." Characters in a story are artistic constructs (even if they are real people -- Buford apparently did say as much) and they have to move the story forward. General Lee saying, "that's where I met my wife," might be interesting, but it doesn't move the story forward -- it doesn't help Jackson reach his goal. I'd still say that Jackson got a lot of screen time without carrying the weight as the story's protagonist. Here's another example. Remember the Episode II of Star Wars. The one with the baby Darth Vader. Some young friends of mine thought it was a great movie. I asked them, "who was the main character?" They didn't have an answer. How was Jackson's goal (as stated by you) any more valid as the main idea of the film than Lee saying he wanted to defend his home? It's not. As a story, we should be be able to say, "okay, this is how Lee is defending his home." Oh wait, Jackson is the main character. It's tough to have split protagonists, although "buddy" movies are a staple of Hollywood. Witness the success of "Thelma and Louise", the original "Star Trek" crew, the four "Lethal Weapon" movies. But G&G was a hodge podge, a mess.
Walt
He said something to the effect that, if the war was to result in the south's conquest, he did not desire to live to see it. This was said toward the end of the film. There were also several death bed utterances where he spoke of what needed to be done next - "take the war to their soil," or something to that effect.
You'd argue with a sign post.
And you behave as if you were one.
Did you even see the movie, Walt? Jackson repeatedly converses with others about the battles, speaking of the need to drive the yankees from their land. He even suggests that no quarter be shown at one point. That was in a dialogue between him and other soldiers about the purpose of their cause.
But you cannot be reasonably expected to comprehend that as you have already decided it is not in the film. As I said, you made that decision not on the film's merits or the presence of a goal in it, but rather on the grounds that you disagreed with that goal.
But if the movie version riled you, Just wait for the DVD. It is my understanding that it has historically known scenes showing blacks in confederate uniforms.
So implicitly, he is saying, "let's do Pickett's Charge." The rebellion ultimately collapsed, didn't it?
That's pretty depressing.
Jim Lovell DID get home. Luke Skywalker DID become a Jedi Knight, Patton DID lead a lot of men in a desperate battle, General Buford DID hold the high ground. Joan of Arc DID maintain her faith in the face of all adversity.
No wonder G&G tanked. And you're not doing much credit to the memory of Thomas Jackson, now called home to God's bosom.
Walt
I've shown you all the signs I can.
Walt
Considering that he died months before that particular event, your inference is unsupportable.
The rebellion ultimately collapsed, didn't it?
Not at the time Jackson was fighting. Almost all of the big victories until his death and including the battle where he was shot were confederate - manassas I, manassas II, fredericksburg, and chancellorsville.
Jim Lovell DID get home. Luke Skywalker DID become a Jedi Knight, Patton DID lead a lot of men in a desperate battle
...and the south did take the war to yankee soil as Jackson stated.
And unfortunately yours are advertisements for the sausage & pork rinds stand on the side of the highway rather than directions to anything substantive.
Not at the time Jackson was fighting.
But ultimately, it did collapse. I was right. You were wrong.
Walt
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.