 |
|
GODS AND GENERALS
GODS AND GENERALS , USA , 2003, MPAA Rating : PG-13 for sustained battle sequences
The problem with having read the book on which a film is based is that no matter how hard you try, it’s hard to divorce that book from its adaptation playing out before you on the big screen. So it is with GODS AND GENERALS, the prequel to GETTYSBURG, and based on the novel by Jeff Shaara, son of Michael who wrote THE KILLER ANGELS on which GETTYSBURG was based.
Now I am perfectly aware that a movie is not a book and that there will of necessity be changes. Hence, I can almost live with screenwriter/director Ronald Maxwell’s decision to not begin GODS with Robert E. Lee’s arrest of John Brown at Harper’s Ferry. For many historians, this is the unofficial beginning of the Civil War and it’s also an opportunity to see Lee in his Union army days. It would also have been a nice opportunity to expand on Lee’s conflicted views about slavery. Sympathetic to the peculiar institution he was not.
Still, being in a generous frame of mind, I thought to myself as I settled in, Maxwell has three hours and forty minutes (not counting the 12 minutes intermission) to give us over two years of turbulent history. Something has to go. We do get Lee’s eloquent refusal to lead the Union troops after Fort Sumter is fired on, and in the person of Robert Duvall, it is a deeply moving speech full of melancholy duty from a man who is faced with a choice that is clear, but heartbreaking.
Would that this were the only misstep and would that it were the most radical departure from the book. It is not. Maxwell has subverted both the novel and history by essaying a revisionist reading that defies all logic, above all from a cinematic point of view.
Robert E. Lee is the most written about general of the Civil War. Arguably, the only general to have more words written about him is Napolean. Thus, I can almost fathom why Maxwell would want to shift the focus of GODS AND GENERALS from him to another fascinating character, Stonewall Jackson. With so much already said about Lee, Jackson must have seemed a wonderful, undiscovered country ripe for film. Here was a general who struck terror even in his own men, a ferocious warrior who believed that he was doing God's will no matter what the body count, an eccentric of note in a part of the country known for not only tolerating them, but cherishing them.
How could it all have gone so wrong?
It was frighteningly easy. Maxwell has made the, shall we say interesting, decision to change God’s hellcat into a warm and fuzzy teddy bear. This was a man who subscribed to Torquemada’s view of Christianity, the kind that offers bloodshed and retribution as the key to salvation. Yet the scenes of him invoking his deity, and there are many, are not, as one would have hoped, a oratory verging on madness, but instead the sort of saccharine that evokes not awe, but a nervous shifting of the audience members in their seats as they wonder why the film has changed from fact-based historical fiction to a Sunday school filmstrip. And a badly produced one at that. Why indeed? Where is the fire? Where the passion? Where the lemon-sucking zealot who habitually kept one arm extended skyward in order to be closer to his God? Not here.
And unfortunately, everything else is secondary to Jackson. Duvall’s superbly tortured Lee is scarcely a cameo role to which we cling. As for anymeaningful depiction of the war itself, the entire logic of why soldiers are marching anywhere in particular is eschewed in favor of yet another scene of Jackson, in the earnest person of Stephen Lang, who when not praying, is sweet-talking his wife (Kali Rocha) or staring rigidly straight in front of him as others talk, fight, or both.
Another change I cannot fathom is the relationship between Joshua Chamberlain (Jeff Daniels returning as the college professor turned thoughtful, courageous citizen-soldier) and his wife (Mira Sorvino). In the book, it was love match gone wrong, making Chamberlain’s longing for her all the more poignant. Instead, we have them reciting poetry to each other the night before he leaves. Oh please.
I'm sure that all involved pinned their collective hopes on the director's vision and the sort of magic that post-production can conjure with its scoring, editing, and other such. All of which once again proves that denial ain't just a river in Egypt. In moments of what I'm sure all involved hoped would be high emotion, even gut-wrenching, tear-jerking drama, what appears on the screen can be most charitably desribed as turgid. The sort of self-conscious seriousness found in the more earnest, if misguided, of high-school productions.
Now, here’s why I haven’t given up entirely on the next installment of the trilogy, THE LAST FULL MEASURE, which will take us from just after Gettysburg to Appomattox Courthouse. There is a scene in GODS AND GENERALS where two soldiers, one Union, one Confederate, meet between the lines to swap tobacco for coffee, a common occurrence during the war. As they stand there silently, one smoking, one sipping, they regard each other with polite curiosity, as if to say, “Hell of a mess we're in the middle of.” It is a perfect moment and a perfect commentary on this and all other wars. If Ronald Maxwell can pull off that scene, maybe he can pull off the next movie, too. Here's hoping.
My rating:
Would you like to comment on this review ? Click Here
|
| |
| Moviegoer Review |
| |
    daa (jaydaysam@aol.com) |
| Jackson was probably mentally ill. Today we would view him as a religiuous fanatic at best. Although he had his good days he also had his bad. His generalship was irratic and he did not always perform well. Look at his horrible leadship during the penninsular campaign in front of Richmond. All the movie focused on was the legend of Jackson and not the real flawed man. By giving the movie to Jacksons character we were short changed on the developement of RE Lee's s, character and Joshua Chamberlain' character. The movie was definitely more sympathetic to the Southern side which although romantic if you go for that sort of thing was the side that rebelled against the united states and supported the institution of slavery. Last I checked those were not noble ideals for which to fight. |
| |
    Charles Ormond (jncormond@centurytel.net) |
| As a history major in college, I thought this was an excellent movie. What people have to understand is that it is very difficult to have a movie the huge scope of the civil war in a almost 4 hour movie. I thought the stonewall story line was a welcome change instead of always hearing about lee. Many people who study the civil war believe that if Jackson had not died, he, lee, and Longstreet would have forced a union surrender. |
| |
    UGH! (bobblooz@yahoo.com) |
| A definite disappointment after "Gettysburg".
As an avid Civil War buff and historical movie viewer, I found myself stepping in and out of the theater only to find Jackson preaching again. Yes, he was a very religious man but do we have to beat this theme to death?? UGH!
Hopefully The Last Full Measure will have more redeeming qualities. |
| |
    None (wd) |
| I thought the movie was very good, but not as good as Gettysburg.
P.S.
I don't know what movie you saw |
| |
    Richard Reed (RReed1924@aol.com) |
| You were, in fact, quite charitable in your review of a movie that stunk to high heaven, and discredits the brave and noble soldiers who fought on both sides of the Civil War. However, I share your hope that the third film in this series, Last Full Measure, will redeem Ron Maxwell for his sloppy Gods and Generals. |
| |
    Anonymous (anonymous@anonymous.com) |
| Hi. I haven't seen the movie yet but I just wanted to comment on Jackson sucking lemons. It's not true. I believe that myth was discounted awhile back but I can't provide a source offhand. I'm going off what my Civil War professor (one of the consultants on the film) told us a couple of weeks ago. |
| |
    Adele (itsadele@yahoo.com) |
| The only problem with the relationship described between Joshua and Fanny is that she is rarely prtrayed accurately. Maxwell described her as "moody and difficult" while biographers tell a different story. Every portrayal has its fallacies. As for "southern sympathy" film - how often does that occur? Not very
( this coming from a yank ) |
| |
    Unknown Writer (hbert@guardian.co.uk) |
| The reviewer probably saw the truth. All of these Turner produced films (TV or screen) is a buch of redneck southern sympathetic nonsence. You can not have a movie about the civil way and not give equal time and attention to detail and affection to both sides, It is here that the truth and so called beauty of this great war and tragedy is found. The was was only faught below the mason dixon line but the heart of it can only be found above it. The rest is nonsence, wrapped up in prejudge and fear, the same plague that has cursed the south since it ill decided to begin their "great cause." |
| |
    Tom (tridge@msn.com) |
| I saw the movie last weekend and it was very moving. All leaving the theater were raving. What the heck did you see? |
| |
|
 |
|
 |