Posted on 02/21/2003 3:32:54 AM PST by JohnHuang2
Richard Jordan, who was Armistead in Gettysburg, died shortly after making the film from a brain tumor. He gave probably the best performance of the movie, IMO.
He saw Ted Turner on the day TT said his one line and then died. I asked him if Jane was there (this was back when Turner and Fonda were still together). He said they didn't and added that a couple of the men in his group, being Vietnam vets, would have taken a shot at her. :)
As to why the bad reviews. Chalk it up to an inability and unwillingness to see honor and courage praised. Also with both Jackson and Chamberlain their love for their wives reaches for the spiritual. In today's chic world even the idea of committment is junked. The idea that that loving committment could be placed in a spiritual and Christian context is anathema to those who celebrate today's pleasure driven society. The scenes between Jackson and Chamberlain and their wives smoulder with true LOVE. Body, Heart, Mind, and Soul. This depiction of true faith and true loving committment is so foreign to those in the world of film and comtemporary literature that they have no choice but to deride it,
Gonna take some word of mouth. There's an organized hit out on the movie. Ninety percent of the reviews are negative, all politically motivated.
I just got back form seeing it. I thought it was good, but then I thought Ken Burns' documentary was too short. It just isn't structured like a Hollywood movie. The dialog is taken from letters and memoirs written by the actual historical figures. It's lake a Shakespeare play, with long set pieces instead of rapid cuts. (OK, the dialog isn't as poetic as Shakespeare, but it's authentic)
We are dealing with movie critics that have no attention span and no minds.
Good advice. One has to see it, and I will spend the next few weeks trying to forget what it might have been.
I just finished the book and will be starting The Last Full Measure this weekend.
I'm disappointed there was not more of Chamberlain (I do hope a director's cut restores some of his scenes). In fact, as some have alluded, the movie might well have been called Mighty Stonewall (to borrow a title of one of the bigraphies of Jackson). Stephen Lang is nothing short of magnificent as Stonewall Jackson, and would well deserve an Oscar nod. It's about time, IMO that Jackson was depicted in a movie!
My main objections:
Robert Duvall was awful as Lee. He is way too old for the part, and made Lee appear, IMO as a doddering old simpleton. I wonder if some of the scenes that were left out, which would have shown the genius of Lee, were left out because of Duvall's weak performance. Even had he been younger, I think he wouldn't have worked. There is a wry, ironic quality in Duvall that is inapporpriate for the Patrician, stoic and heroic Lee. Also, while I can understand not showing some of the other engagements that were left out (Antietam, 2nd Manassas, etc), I would've liked to have had some mention made of them. It really appears in the movie as if there is a long truce after Fredericksburg (the film's centerpiece), and then we have the battle of Chancellorsville.
SPOILER ALERT FOR THOSE WHO PLAN TO READ THE BOOK!Considering how fabulous Stephen Lang was as Stonewall, my main complaint involves something left out in his death scene. I remember that when I read the book, I thought this will be a great cinematic moment if they ever film this. In the movie, Jackon's wife is with hime; he barks out some commands, says, quietly-"let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees", and ides. Well, that is all well and good; that is exactly how Jackson died. But in the book Jackson, in a dying reverie, sees himself as a child; sees his mother young again, and his sister; then sees himself in uniform, and his mother floats occros the surface of a river (The Jordan?) and beckons to him and says -"let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees". Had they filmed that, and then cut to Jackson saying those words on his deathbed, there wouldn't have been a dry eye in the house! As it was, I think I heard a few sniffles.
"It's hard to imagine any African-American not taking affront at Gods and Generals, which doesn't even get around to the controversy of slavery until more than halfway through the movie."
-- Mary F. Pols, CONTRA COSTA TIMES
Kind of similar to how the Civil War itself didn't get around to the controversy of slavery until more than halfway through it.
"My father, as were most of the people in that section of country, was devotedly attached to the Union, and had very pronounced views on the question of slavery, believing it was wrong, viewed from any stand point. But when the struggle came he was heart and soul for the country of his birth. With tear dimmed eyes and aching hearts, my parents bid good bye to their five sons, who volunteered for service in the Confederate Army, little hoping for the safe return of all of them"
He also hated Gladiator, which may not have deserved all its oscars, but was a pretty kickass spectacle nonetheless. He particularly hated the opening battle scene in Gladiator, which I use to demo my sound system.
In his review of Gods and Generls,Ebert actually states "there could have been no Sgt. "Buster" Kilrain in the 20th Maine, for the unavoidable reason that "Buster" was never used as a name until Buster Keaton used it." This is absurd. The Buster Brwon style of clothing, and the Buster Brown comic strip were popular in the early 20th Century long before Buster Keaton was a well-known figure in movies. I doubt Ebert did much research on the history of the name. He does dwell on the lack of African-Americans in the film, and the lack of denunciations of slavery (like his Glory review-complaining that the movie was not made his way), and calls it a film Trent Lott would approve of. His 1/2* rating is obviously given with extreme prejudice. This is hardly surprising, given his own leftist viewpoints (Bush stole the election from Gore, etc) and the fact that he is married to an equally liberal black woman.
I have too. I remember some very good discussions we used to have before these two cut and paste artists began their crusades.
Wasn't that an amazing account? I found that link when I was trying to find out information about one of my ancestors who fought in the Arkansas infantry. If you notice his style of writing it is very similar to the language in Gods and Generals.
My husband and I went today and we LOVED it! It is so stimulating and beautifully made. It left my husband wanting more though. He wondered to me about why Antietam was left out and I told him that a lot of the movie had been cut so it will probably be included later in the DVD version.
I was so impressed with Stephen Lang and Jeff Daniels and Robert Duvall and all of them really. It was a great movie and the only reason why it has been maligned is because it didn't depict the southerners as monsters but as human beings.
Thanks for clicking on that link. I couldn't not share it with folks because it is an actual account by a confederate veteran.
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.