Gods and Generals Review
by Mark R. Leeper (markrleeper AT yahoo DOT com)February 24th, 2003
GODS AND GENERALS
(a film review by Mark R. Leeper)
CAPSULE: This film has been generally rejected
by the critics; nonetheless history buffs may
find GODS AND GENERALS is a compelling look at
the first two years of the Civil War seen, as
it rarely is, from the Confederate viewpoint.
Dramatically awkward off the battlefield at times, the film has spectacular but believable
reenactments of battle. Rating: 8 (0 to 10),
high +2 (-4 to +4)
I should start by saying that my tastes are going to be skewed on this film. I consider myself a minor Civil War buff and the companion production GETTYSBURG is one of my favorite history films. It was a fairly accurate yet engaging representation of history. I think much the same of GODS AND GENERALS. I have visited the battle fields for the three battles depicted in this film--Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville--and seeing the reenactments brings the history very much to life. This film is three and a half hours of fairly engaging recreation of some of the most dramatic years of American history.
Experience tells me I should make clear at the outset, even at the risk of repeating the obvious, that my position on slavery is that it was an evil institution. This film is about people who fought on the same side as people who defended slavery. In liking the film I am in no way being sympathetic to slavery or its defenders any more than I was when I liked the film GETTYSBURG.
Several years ago Michael Shaara wrote the excellent and well- researched novel THE KILLER ANGELS, which was an account of the battle of Gettysburg. At that time Ted Turner's organization would make mediocre and usually inaccurate made-for-TV films about the Civil War. Typical was IRONCLADS, which had a mostly fictional story, though it had an impressive dramatization of the battle of the Monitor and the Virginia (a.k.a. the Merrimac). For the capper of this series of films the decision was made to adapt Shaara's THE KILLER ANGELS as the basis for a film about the battle of Gettysburg. This would be a large- scale film and to keep costs down they would get thousands of free extras by using Civil War reenactment hobbyists. This had the perhaps-unforeseen virtue of having thousands of avid experts on the Civil War right there on set. This must have led to a lot of arguing but also to one of the most accurate history films ever made. It was intended to be shown for two nights on television, but when the producers realized they had something special, GETTYSBURG was released first for a theatrical run in 1993. It was greatly popular with the critics and with history buffs.
Michael Shaara did not live to write more novels of the same cast about the Civil War, but his son Jeff wrote two additional novels, GODS AND GENERALS and THE LAST FULL MEASURE. The former tells the story of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson and at the same time much of the history of the war leading up to the battle of Gettysburg. The latter tells the story of the Civil War after. These two novels frame the original. A decade after GETTYSBURG was filmed, the Turner organization is trying to repeat the success of that film by much of the same production team and many of the same actors in many of the same roles for GODS AND GENERALS. It is almost as if the production of GETTYSBURG is continuing. The ten years has, however, taken a noticeable toll in the aging of those actors who though they are a decade older are playing the same people a year or so younger. It is especially noticeable in Jeff Daniels's Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. But there is not much that can be done about aging and every effort possible was made to make this film fit seamlessly with GETTYSBURG.
Like some soldiers the new film is terrific in battle but is frequently a little awkward off the battlefield. Some of the acting seems stagy, some is contrived, and some is badly-paced. But GODS AND GENERALS does something that perhaps no other film has dared. It presents the Confederate viewpoint on the war without letting the issue of slavery overshadow all else. The film seems to freely admit that slavery was wrong, but slavery was not something the Southern soldier (or most Northern soldiers) saw as being central to the reasons for the war. Slavery was a dying institution. Pivotal in the Confederacy's issues was that they believed the Federal government was ignoring States' rights and forcing its will on the South. The United States (in the North) was mounting an army to invade the South to enforce federal control. Of course, this was ignoring the fact the Confederacy had already fired on the United States at Fort Sumter.
The film also repeatedly but probably accurately depicts many of the characters as having religion central to their thinking. God and Providence are mentioned often and piety is an important part of some of these people. I interpret this emphasis not as proselytizing but as being again historically accurate. Religion was a great comfort to these people at a time when life was hard even without war. These were also verbose times and some emotional scenes about love and Christmas are longer and more sentimental than would be the current cinematic style. These were people who did not lead such rushed lives. There is a trade-off between realism of the dialogue and giving the viewer the information needed is not as skillfully handled as in the film GETTYSBURG.
One of the more disappointing aspects of this film is the music. For GETTYSBURG Randy Edelman composed a powerful score that captured the novel's feel of the power of the events we were seeing. Edelman is also the primary composer for the current film, but is joined by John Frizzell. In this film the music is much more of a mournful lament. That and the addition of vocals that are even more doleful create a very different feel. Unlike the themes for GETTYSBURG, this is not a score that many will want to add to their collection. In addition, this film seems to have some unconvincing visual effects. If there are visual effects in the previous film, they are not obvious. On the other hand, with the passing of time it is now a little more acceptable to show the horrors of mid-19th-Century battlefield medicine. Some may find the hospital scenes harrowing but they are more correct. Again the film makes extensive use of historical reenactors, nearly three thousand of them.
GODS AND GENERALS is predominantly the story of Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. It takes him from being a professor at Virginia Military Institute almost to the battle of Gettysburg. We again have Jeff Daniels playing Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain. But mostly the film is the story of Stonewall Jackson over a period of two years. That is a different kind of focus than GETTYSBURG had, depicting many people over four days. The film also omits some of Jackson's stranger idiosyncrasies like holding one hand in the air supposedly to balance the fluids in his body. Some of the major roles have been shuffled. Rather than Martin Sheen as Robert E. Lee, we have Robert Duvall. Sheen was very good but Duvall is perhaps America's best actor and he adds a great deal of gravity to the role. Each looks impressive on a horse. Stephen Lang, who played Pickett in GETTYSBURG, gets a larger but less flashy role as Stonewall Jackson.
I think GETTYSBURG as a history film actually is great. GODS AND GENERALS is not great, but it is at least fine. In spite of the negative reviews and some obvious drawbacks I enjoyed it very much and look forward to seeing it again. For the reasons I have given I rate it an 8 on the 0 to 10 scale and a high +2 on the -4 to +4 scale.
Mark R. Leeper
[email protected]
Copyright 2003 Mark R. Leeper
More on 'Gods and Generals'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
