Gods and Generals Personal Review

[jan]

As a Civil War era descendant I was really excited about going to see Gods and Generals. Well, I personally think this movie was way too long and that Jackson's portrayal was way off base. Jackson was not a kind, considerate, loving, man the way he was portrayed in the movie. He was a Southern CSA warrior. His wife would not have kissed him in public as portrayed in the train scene. One did not show a public display of affection, married or not, at that time. Heavens! if you showed an ankle under your hoop, a woman was considered a floozy!! The producer and directors took some liberties with this story that are not authentic. The battle scenes were well-made, but lengthy for the story. I did cry a lot during Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg. It was moving. Chamberlain's soliloquy was really too long. I figured he did not have enough to do. So, ends my critique of Gods and Generals. 21/2 stars.

[samgrant]

Good report Jan, wherever you are.

[whitworth]

I've put in an order for a DVD rental on this movie, Gods and Generals.

Well, no "Hollywood writer and director" could possibly get it really, really right on a Civil War movie. Films are so limiting, in that they are usually too short for the topic at hand. And too few directors know much about the topic to become expert at what was correct or what was incorrect. I disagree with too many historians to expect more of a movie director.

Was just starting my renewed study of the Civil War, when I spoke to a re-enactor in this movie, on the set of another movie. Recommended several books I had never read.

Told me of the scenes in Gods and Generals,where they used computers to expand the size of the troops filmed in the movie. I'll look for those scenes and my film making acquaintance of a few years ago.

[samgrant]

Originally Posted by whitworth

Told me of the scenes in Gods and Generals,where they used computers to expand the size of the troops filmed in the movie. I'll look for those scenes and my film making acquaintance of a few years ago.

A good example of this is a wide angle view of the Reb line when the Irish Brigade attacks at Fredericksburg. You can see where a goup of that line is repeated about 6 or 7 times across.

[Blockaderunner]

I have just seen this movie for the first time. I am also currently reading Jeff Shara's Gods and Generals. Many reviews on the forum point out inaccuracies, but there is one point we should all remember. This is a movie of the book, not a detailed re-telling of history. The characters are portrayed as Jeff Shara wrote. Jackson may not appear as I, or other movie goers personally visualised him. But he his close to his book character.
I enjoyed the movie. The only real negative for me was the poor computer generated effects. The shelling of Fredericksburg was limp, as were the long shots of the attack on Maryes Heights. Really good movies of the Civil War are rare, so we should be thankfull when one like this comes along.

[devildog]

I enjoyed the movie very much. But I enjoyed the book more, which is normally the case. I did feel that the book contained alot more about the other figures than just Gen. Jackson. The movie was predominantly about Jackson. I would of like to see more of Robert Duvall as Gen. Lee.

[larry_cockerham]

Did anyone notice or object to the fact that most of the folks (officers for the most part) in the closeups were terribly well dressed, clean and ironed as if wearing new thread straight from the cleaners? Gettysburg had a much better "feel". Some of the beards even looked new.

[samgrant]

Not to carp, but I found that that film (on DVD) so unintersting that I barely made it beyond the first few tracks of the 2nd disk.

[larry_cockerham]

A possible cure for insomnia? (like some of my writing)

[whitworth]

The problem is how much a movie one makes for the re-enactors and civil war historian/students and the movie you make for the general public.
The book by necessity has to differ from the book by usual time contraints. Movies, except perhaps adaptations of plays, must exclude.
Can anyone really attempt to put Stonewall Jackson, in perspective, in the modern era? Was the movie too much Stonewall Jackson?

I remember the one scene, where they tell of the overwhelming vote for secession in the valley. Yet, just over the Allegheny Mountains in western Virginia, there was little preparation and hope of properly defending much of that part of Virginia.

And yes, Ted Turner, got his role in Gods and Generals.


In revisited Civil War history over the last few years, I have an idea that too much emphasis is placed on the valor of the Confederate army and too little on their logistical inability to wage and win a long war. Short of many supplies at its start; the Confederacy never quite made up those deficits and kept falling behind as the years of war continued.
I imagine one can be charitable to the Confederate army. They did lose in the end.