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