Posted on 03/22/2003 4:54:16 PM PST by Continental Op
Civil War epic shut down by 'PC crowd'? 'Gods and Generals' a painful disappointment at box office
Posted: March 22, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Art Moore © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com
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
Warner Brothers' "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."
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.