Gods and Generals again
Flowers
it. The reason I am trying to start a new thread is to bring the
discussion back to the movie.
I think it would be really sad if anyone with any interest in the CW
avoided this movie because of all the negative remarks in this ng. I
hope everyone does what they can to support this movie so that we can
have more.
Okay its not a great movie, its got problems, its too pro slavery, etc.
But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
better. It is an improvement over Gettysburg which seemed a little
cheesy to me (nonetheless, Gettysburg is one of the few movies I have
ever bought and I've lost track of how many times I've watched it).
I really enjoyed G&G and will buy it and watch it many times even though
I found much of it objectional (well dressed slaves!). Also, I wish
they had played Jackson as being a little crazier. I think that in
reallity, he was a genuine nut case.
But please rent or buy the movie. It makes a great companion to
Gettysburg. And I look forward with anticipation to "The Last Full
Measure." I sure hope it gets made.
Minus
Hawk
the CW avoided this movie because of all the negative remarks in this
ng. I hope everyone does what they can to support this movie so that we
"Gettysburg" It's entirely to Southern for the yankee viewers...
Matthew Erwin
It was a bold stance to even hint at exploring the Southern point of view.
It was lagging in some areas. I think it was edited to a flaw in some
places- like when Gen. AP Hill turns to another General and asks if he's
still having a dispute with Gen. Jackson. Nowhere in the movie did it build
upon that moment. But I believe a six hour version will be release in the
next couple years that will go into that in more detail. It will also have
Sharpsberg in it.
Matthew
"Flowers" <twofl...@earthlink.com> wrote in message
news:3F1F4C52...@earthlink.com...
Eric Erlandson
: I enjoyed G&G. I know it got horrible reviews from all over the country.
: Matthew
:>
--
-Eric
(Eric Erlandson, VP, DirOp, e...@inebraska.com)
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Eric Erlandson
It's the "etc." that maddens most movie goers. Of course, ACW students
shouldn't mind the CSA bias. That was, after all, half the battle, if you
will. But the deplorable script and wretched direction can not be
forgiven. Endless, made-for-TV speeches delivered with all the fire of a
spiked cannon, a happy mountain of a buck black man who sho 'nuff can cook
dem vittles, a cameo by TV Ted whose artistry infected the whole mess --
these things and more will torture you minute after minute after minute.
You've read about ten million times how yanks and rebs would trade coffee
and tobacco, right? Well, see this done in the most awkward scene ever
filmed. (It's only been *how* many hours now?) Did you know that Jackson
was mortally wounded at Chancellorsville? Well, you'll know it and know
it good by the end of this groaner.
And get a load of the sanitary killing. Look there's one guy with his leg
shot off, and some others tumbling! Oh, hear them groan. War was heck,
I tell you.
: But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
: better.
Best what? There will be many which are much better, I promise.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>Okay its not a great movie, its got problems, its too pro slavery, etc.
I wouldn't say it was "pro" slavery, rather that it was timid and
spineless in its treatment of the subject. In its attempts to offend
no one, it offended everyone.
>But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
>better. It is an improvement over Gettysburg which seemed a little
>cheesy to me (nonetheless, Gettysburg is one of the few movies I have
>ever bought and I've lost track of how many times I've watched it).
I enjoyed "Gods and Generals" too, but I still prefer "Gettysburg".
The latter has the air of an ROTC field trip, but I enjoyed it
nonetheless.
The real problem with both films is that they were essentially made as
very large budget TV movies. The subject deserves the attentions of a
serious film director.
--
More blood for oil... in my name!
Christopher Morton
It's a matter of the point of view of the people in charge of the
project. For an apt analogy, witness the Australian cinema of the
'70s and '80s. It was based to a large degree on perceived Australian
grievance against the English. "Breaker Morant", "Gallipoli", and
"The Lighthorsemen" all have a specific "Australian" POV, just as G&G
and "Gettysburg" have a Southern one, albeit somewhat less intense in
"Gettysburg"..
Brooks Simpson
I think Hawk has gotten his epics confused. :)
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>: But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
>: better.
>
>Best what? There will be many which are much better, I promise.
Really? I'd like to believe you, but it's tough.
Name five well made, well known Civil War films other than Gettyburg
or G&G.
I can easily meet the challenge if you substitute WWI, WWII or even
Korea and Vietnam.
Hell, I'll bet there are more good films about the 30 Years War than
the ACW.
Michael Furlan
>I enjoyed G&G. I know it got horrible reviews from all over the country.
>It was a bold stance to even hint at exploring the Southern point of view.
It would have been bold if it had explored the Southern point of view,
which was unapologetically pro-slavery. Slavery with a biblical
basis, sanctioned by God and under attack by heretical Yankee
atheists, Unitarians, Transcendentalists, abolitionists and other free
thinking monsters.
Instead we have a the modern PC version of a slavery that nobody
wanted, but which the slaves really didn't mind too much anyway.
It was the antithesis of "bold."
raymond o'hara
"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
news:2is2ivk43i4dk2lhc...@4ax.com...
> On 25 Jul 2003 15:05:19 GMT, Eric Erlandson <e...@stork.inebraska.com>
> wrote:
>
> >: But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
> >: better.
> >
> >Best what? There will be many which are much better, I promise.
>
> Really? I'd like to believe you, but it's tough.
>
> Name five well made, well known Civil War films other than Gettyburg
> or G&G.
glory
the horse soldiers
the red badge of courage { 2 versions}
the general { my fave }
Robert J. Kolker
raymond o'hara wrote:
>
> glory
> the horse soldiers
> the red badge of courage { 2 versions}
> the general { my fave }
Does -Birth of a Nation- count?
Bob Kolker
>
Cash
"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote
>
> Name five well made, well known Civil War films other than Gettyburg
> or G&G.
-----------
"Well made" is in the eye of the beholder, but here's a list:
1. Glory
2. The Blue and the Gray
3. Alvarez Kelly
4. The Horse Soldiers
5. North and South
Regards,
Cash
Matthew Erwin
Matthew
"Michael Furlan" <mi...@thecivilwargroup.com> wrote in message
news:v733ivkt1uai9ugv7...@4ax.com...
Christopher Morton
wrote:
>
>"Christopher Morton" <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
>news:2is2ivk43i4dk2lhc...@4ax.com...
>> On 25 Jul 2003 15:05:19 GMT, Eric Erlandson <e...@stork.inebraska.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >: But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
>> >: better.
>> >
>> >Best what? There will be many which are much better, I promise.
>>
>> Really? I'd like to believe you, but it's tough.
>>
>> Name five well made, well known Civil War films other than Gettyburg
>> or G&G.
>
>
>glory
I'll give you that one, I'd forgotten about it.
>the horse soldiers
Eh, not really. They didn't even bother to try to dig out any real
muskets, just Trapdoor Springfields. It's kind of entertaining, but
doesn't say much meaningful about the war, per se.
>the red badge of courage { 2 versions}
I saw the Audie Murphy version not long ago. Again, not really a big
movie on the level of "Gettysburg" or G&G, though. Almost an art
film, really.
>the general { my fave }
I really wasn't considering comedy.
Christopher Morton
wrote:
I never really saw 2 or 5 in their entirety. They're actually TV
movies, aren't they?
Walt Appel
Both were TV miniseries. I like the Blue and the Gray and watch it
every once in a while. There are some technical problems like the
uniforms (which always aggravate me) but the story line isn't too bad
and overall its not too bad a watch.
I've never been able to get through either North and South, be it the
books or the two miniseries. Its hard enough to get good CW fiction
these days without John Jakes' gothic novels being passed off for it.
I don't recommend those to anyone outside of camp x-ray.
Alvarez Kelly is kind of fun. Its a horse opera moved to Virginia and
based on the beefsteak raid. There are problems but Richard Widmark's
classic "Uh Uh..." more than makes up for them. There are some funny
scenes as well like Confederate cavalrymen trying to round up cattle
for the first time and the scene in the Richmond jail.
"Gettysburg, The Boys in Blue and Gray" had a lot of hoopla last year
for its being completely made by reenactors. So the usual problems
for the nitpickers are pretty much taken care of. Acting is another
story. It has some good moments but the jaded surgeon scenes with
civilian nurses talking like they are in a mash unit are just
ridiculous.
Walt
Ellen
the extreme religiosity connected to Jackson. Was he that religious
in real life? I need to check his biography. However, apart from
Gettystburg, that I believe too is the next best film where CW is
concerned. Does anybody know if the Director will come up with "The
last Full Measure"?
Christopher Morton <chr...@ameritech.net> wrote in message news:<2fh2iv4v5djlltm9s...@4ax.com>...
Cash
Movies are movies.
Regards,
Cash
BobAndVickey
>last Full Measure"?
The Director, Producer & Screen Writers still owe me God's & Generals. They
should have named the movie I saw "Stonewall!, The South was Right"
They could have saved 30 minutes or so by yanking the yankee cameos of
Chamberlin & company. Unless you saw "Gettysburg" or read the books you would
have no clue who these guys were or why you should care. They could have saved
another 30 minutes getting rid of the Bobby Lee scenes since they added nothing
to the plot and I consider both his refusal to accept command of the Federal
Army and acceptance of the command of the Army of Virgina poorly written and
delivered.
Sadly I kept waiting for Fool Tom to get killed so that perhaps some of the
other charecters might yet be developed to only find out that the movie ends
when he does.
As to some earlier comments someone made that we should all buy and rent G&G,
even if it is a horrid movie because these people might get it right for "The
last Full Measure", No thank you.
That is the same logic as somone, who is failing to do the job they were hired
for, telling the boss that if they get a raise then they will do their duty.
Never works, all you get is a bum with a raise that still does not do the job.
I can deal with a Southern perspective movie filled with historical errors and
enjoy it, if at least the charecters have depth and the story draws me in. Gone
with the Wind is a classic example. G&G had neither history or depth of story
on its side. It was pure cardboard cutouts.
If it had only been done "A Bridge Too Far" or "The Longest Day" Style then it
might have been interesting. Both of those movies proved you could show a
major event from both sides and develope the charecters in the process.
Bob Ruth
Christopher Morton
>Movies are movies.
Not really. What's more of a serious movie, "Once an Eagle" or
"Saving Private Ryan"?
Hawk
burned Atlanta. How he shot and destoyed all the food supply for the
already starving South. The lincolnites would surely enjoy something
along these lines..
BobAndVickey
The game by Activision to go along with the movie is even worse than the movie.
A very low end quality first person shooter that requires top end graphics and
memory to run. Even at the $9 discount price it is a horrid rip off.
I do have to admit the idea of a good first person perspective ACW game does
have a certain charm to it, as a break from the strategy and tactical games,
but G&G the game is not it.
Bob Ruth
raymond o'hara
"Hawk" <ABB...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14733-3F...@storefull-2355.public.lawson.webtv.net...
hood burnt atlanta , and sherman 's march hastened the end of the war and
ended their suffering sooner . as you point out they were alreafdy starving
..
DT
"Hawk" <ABB...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14733-3F...@storefull-2355.public.lawson.webtv.net...
Christopher Morton
I know I would.
And after that, how about something about Elmyra?
Cash
> On 27 Jul 2003 13:40:16 GMT, "Cash" <Cas...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >Movies are movies.
>
> Not really. What's more of a serious movie, "Once an Eagle" or
> "Saving Private Ryan"?
It depends on an individual's own idea of what's serious. "Once an Eagle"
has a serious message about personal ethics. "Saving Private Ryan" has a
serious message about the nature of warfare. A TV movie is a movie. So is
a movie made for cinematic release.
Regards,
Cash
Brooks Simpson
Hmmm. Hawk's the only person who has suggested this movie, so he must
be a Lincolnite.
Actually, it would be interesting to have a movie about the march, in
part to suggest how it was primarily psychological warfare. And most
successful, at that ... Hawk's still suffering. :)
n canfield
Gone With the Wind??
n canfield
Sgt. Pepper
news:14733-3F...@storefull-2355.public.lawson.webtv.net...
describe them. Hood burned Atlanta while retreating, and Sherman's
confiscation and destruction of food supplies shortened the War by months.
--
Yours, &c.,
Sgt. Pepper
Civil War Reenactors Forum
http://www.cwreenactors.com/cgi-bin/dcforum/dcboard.cgi
"The people of the free states have defended, encouraged, and participated;
and are more guilty for it, before God, than the South, in that they have
not the apology of education or custom." -- Harriet Beecher Stowe on the
North and slavery
Jack Maples
really loved Gettysburg, and in spite of several dozen nits and
technical errors, have watched it more times than I can remember. So
much Neo-Yankee and PC emphasis has been placed on slavery, that I
think its relative absence is refreshing. Oh well. This being said,
there are some points about G&G that haven't been raised:
1. Gettysburg covers about three DAYS in the war; G&G covers about
three YEARS. This is a challenge for any film director.
2. The trilogy focuses on the war in the East. As such, the three
year period covered by G&G is an almost uninterrupted string of
Confederate victories. Thus for G&G to have a southern bias is almost
unavoidable.
3. Dr. Robertson, author of a major biography on Jackson, was the
film's advisor. As a result, Longstreet is nearly absent from the
film. The balance is off even for me as a big Jackson fan.
4. Maxwell tried very hard to pick up 19th century speech in the
film, which is extremely strange for a 21st century ear. With this
came 19th century attitudes, which I believe came through so strongly
that everyone (and particularly the PC left) to some extant was
offended. No one was offended by the Chamberlin speeches in
Gettysburg because it jibed with our modern interpretation of the war.
A 19th century southern viewpoint, which runs against the modern
grain, is less acceptable - - - so it was called stilted specifying.
5. Casting was often poor with Burnside being the most inaccurate in
height and beard in particular. One aide de camp looked like he had a
pair of weasel tails glued to his face. These, however, are
distractions.
6. Personally, I thought the approach to Jackson's cook, Jim, was
well done. Jim was a free man of color who was voluntarily employed
in Confederate service. After Jackson dies, he serves Sandie
Pendleton until Pendleton in killed in 1864. So little attention is
paid to men like Jim that his portrayal in the film is an important
addition to the public understanding of the war.
7. Jackson was a passionate and fervent Christian, which was
underplayed in the film in spite of the scenes that displayed this
aspect of his personality. He taught a Sunday School (including
reading and writing) for Negro children in direct violation of
Virginia law. In contrast, the prayer scene with Jackson and Jim
praying in counterpoint strongly illustrated the differences in their
world views. That level of religiosity is strange to us - - -
Stonewall would make Jerry Falwell look moderate. Jackson also was
extremely neurotic and a definite hypochondriac. John Brown, who was
as extremely religious as Jackson, differs in that Brown was not
merely a neurotic, he was a murderous psychotic (RE: Potawatamie
Massacre).
8. Having seen raw film clips of the Fredricksburg sequence before
the film was released, I was disappointed by the special effects that
ended up on the cutting room floor. Their absence detracted from the
overall film, but then again, the missing scenes of Antietam and
Second Manassas did as well.
Add to these points, the out of period behaviors (e.g., Mrs.
Chamberlain with her hair down during the daytime), and there is much
to criticize. It could have been better, but I enjoyed it
nonetheless. Can't wait for the full 6.5 hour uncut version due out
later this year.
As for Last Full Measure, it will be two plus years of Yankee
victories. Wonder if anyone will criticize the Yankee bias that will
necessarily have to be there?
Michael Furlan
and Generals."
**********************************************************************************
My intention is to recognize good work (not necessarily
those with which I agree, and with a bias in favor of longer
articles), and make it more available by posting it on
the web page:
http://www.thecivilwargroup.com/
There are also links on that page, via google, to all the posts in the
newsgroup. [Click on the picture.]
Please send it to anyone you know who might be interested in the Civil
War, but who can't or won't configure a usenet newsreader.
Please send me e-mail if you want to suggest a post, or if you'd like
to volunteer to pick the posts.
Previous authors of the "Best of the Civil War Group" post:
Don Waugaman, Bob Huddleston, Brooks D. Simpson
Steve Witmer, Robert Taubman, David A. Campbell
Nicholas Geovanis, Brian Hampton, Peter Bilbrough
Robert Brogan, Michael Mackinnon, Eric Calistri
Andrew McMichael, Bruce Henderson, Rich Rostrom
Hugh Lawson, Hawk, Joseph Eros
Juha Kallio, Dave Gorski, James W Bales
Scribe7716, foxwhiskers, David Spencer
Kris Overstreet, Osmo Ronkanen, Paul Wildenhain
Walt Appel, Gary Charbonneau, Jim Elbrecht
Daniel P. Duffy, Wesley Taylor, Katowskii
Jim Voege, Brad Meyer, James F. Epperson
William G. Davis, Pbwalther, HankC
mike stone, Michelle kosek, Aug
Joyce Green, Ed Frank, NCH
Carol Botteron, William Elliott, Dan McClory
Ken Rice, Dean B. Mahin, Trish Winston
Justin M. Sanders, Chris Smith, Tom Forehand
Paul J Hollander, n canfield , Geoff Blankenmeyer
Stewart Millen, Reg Pitts, Mark Jaeger
Jim McGarry , Jeremiah , Al Barnhard
Keith T. Childers, Son of Spam, Abraxus
NoName , Howard G Walker , Ed Jackson
Will Keene, Robert J. Kolker, Mark Grimsley
Stephen Graham, Rod Underwood , Kyri Freeman
David Heeding, Dave Balderston, mvillanu
W. Lydecker, Chuck Pinnegar, Drazen Kramaric
Mark Behrendt, Al Abaster, PLOSCONTI
Carolyn D., Beowulf2ooo, John A. Carnahan
specom, Dave Smith, Robert Willett
Linda Teasley, MLSRM, Charles M. Hagmaier
Douglas Henderson, gatt", Kathy "KMP"
Dave Welsh, Yaakov Macales, E. Carl Speros
Cash, Dan D. Cyr, Ed Sebesta, Jock Ewing
raymond o'hara, Historian, Joe Korber
John Rainbird Gentry, Christopher Morton
Jon G. Stephenson, "DT", JB Jewell
Bruce Trinque, "T. Beard" , Bob Ruth
"Sgt. Pepper", R D Winthrop
On 5 Aug 2003 18:10:01 GMT, ja...@ConfederateStories.com (Jack Maples)
wrote:
Jeff Smithpeters
> But its the best thing we have and I doubt there will ever be anything
> better.
Ever seen Glory? Starring Denzel Washington? You should really check
it out.
Jeff Smithpeters
Unforgettable scenes (the balloonist at Bull Run being just one).
Howard G
duty and in uniform as portrayed in the first 25 minutes of the movie, he
was as much a traitor as Benedict Arnold.
ART. 8. Any officer, non-commissioned officer or soldier, who, being present
at any mutiny or sedition, does not use his utmost endeavor to suppress the
same, or, coming to the knowledge of any intended mutiny, does not, without
delay, give information thereof to his commanding officer, shall be punished
by the sentence of court-martial with death, or otherwise, according to the
nature of his offence.
[sedition - incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful
authority]
ART. 11. After a non-commisssioned officer or soldier shall have been duly
enlisted and sworn, he shall not be dismissed from the service without a
discharge in writing; and no discharge granted him shall be sufficient which
is not signed by a field officer of the regiment to which he belongs, or
commanding officer, where no field officer of the regiment is present; and
no discharge shall be given to a non-commissioned officer or soldier before
his term of service has expired, but by order of the President, the
Secretary of War, the commanding officer of a department, or the sentence of
a general court-martial; nor shall a non-commissioned officer be discharged
from the service but by the order of the President of the United States, or
by sentence of general court-martial.
[For enlisted, but I'm positive the same restrictions apply moreso to
commissioned officers. I believe the U S Code bars enlistment of active duty
or reserve armed forces personnel in foreign armies. Its proves intent to
desert.]
ART. 10. Every non-commissioned officer or soldier, who shall enlist himself
in the service of the United States, shall, at the time of his so enlisting,
or within six days afterward, have the Articles of the government of the
armies of the United States read to him, and shall, by the officer who
enlisted him, or by the commanding officer of the troop or company into
which he was enlisted, be taken before the justice of the peace, or chief
magistrate of any city or town corporate, not being an officer of the army,
or, where sources cannot be had to the civil magistrate, before the judge
advocate, and in his presence, take the followin oath or afformation:
"I, A. B., do solumnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will bear
true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them
honestly and faithfully against all their enemy and opposers whatsoever; and
observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the
orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the Rules and
Articles for the government of the armies of the United States." Which
justice, magistrate or judge advocate is to give the officer a certificate,
signifying that the man enlisted did take the said oath or affirmation.
{The officer's oath is similar. Note the swearing is to the United States,
not "Virginia."]
The current officer's oath of office:
I, (First Name, Middle Name, Last Name) (Social Security Number)
having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as
indicated above in the grade of do solemnly swear
(or affirm)
that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and
allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any
mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and
faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to
enter; SO HELP ME GOD.
Again, no quibbles,or any mention of a state.
ART. 22. No non-commissioned officer or soldier shall enlist himself in any
other regiment, troop, or company in which he last served, on the penalty of
being reputed a deserter and suffer accordingly. And in case any officer
shall knowingly receive and entertain such non-commissioned officer or
soldier, or shall not, after his being his being discovered a deserter,
immediately confine him, and give notice thereof to the corps in which he
last served, the said officer shall, by a court-martial, be cashiered.
[The Army of Virginia is certainly a regiment other than the one he last
served.]
ART. 57. Whosoever shall be convicted of holding correspondence with, or
giving allegience to, the enemy, either directly or indirectly. shall suffer
death, or such punishment as ordered by a general court-martial.
http://members.aol.com/cog10thtx2/artus1.htm
Besides this, the action is very slow. Movie probably rates a negative
rating, say, MINUS (-)***
Would the dandy REL worn that baggy Union uniform?
When was REL commissioned a full colonel? He was promoted to LCOL (O-5) in
1855 subsequent to his West Point tour, but I can find no DOR for O-6. Mere
command of a regiment does not mean immediate promotion to COL. Custer
commanded the 7th as a LCOL.
Hawk wrote:
> Flowers: I think it would be really sad if anyone with any interest in
> the CW avoided this movie because of all the negative remarks in this
> ng. I hope everyone does what they can to support this movie so that we
> can have more. ================================== Like the movie
> "Gettysburg" It's entirely to Southern for the yankee viewers...
JDzik
>duty and in uniform as portrayed in the first 25 minutes of the movie, he
>was as much a traitor as Benedict Arnold.
IIRC, his resignation had not taken effect by the time he started serving in
the CSA army.
The point's pretty moot by now, but I find the more interesting case that of
those men from the various non-seceding states who served in the CSA army.
(John Breckinridge of Kentucky is my usual poster child for this.) They did
not have the excuse of staying with their state - in Breckinridge's case, he
actually participated in an invasion of his home state. If anyone can be
labelled an ACW traitor, it would certainly be these men.
n canfield
video.
Pretty cinematography. Especially liked the scenes of the cavalry
charges where the camera was moving right along with the riders.
However, the long-shot battle scenes were a bit weird. I've been to
Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, and though in the
close-ups the scenes looked authentic, when they showed the panoramic
charges -- the actual fields just don't look like that. They seemed
computer-generated. IIRC, Gettysburg was the only battlefield with
that kind of prairie-like sweep. And, Jackson's attack on Howard's
position at Chancellorsville, while truly a clear and massive
Confederate victory, was not quite the cakewalk Maxwell portrays. I
think the film actually doesn't do Jackson's accomplishment justice --
they made it look too easy.
The rest seemed pretty silly. Very sentimental, as opposed to really
inspiring a true passion or emotion. I think Maxwell was just trying
to press people's hot buttons.
Personally, I don't care about "balance." I find that terribly
politically correct and artificial. For example, what the hell was
Chamberlain doing in this movie? He stood out like a poppy in a wheat
field. The only person portrayed on the Union side. Not part of a plot
or subplot, just there. And what was with Hood's USO Show? Expected a
Bob Hope cameo, but got Ted Turner instead.
Forgive me, but it's difficult to overlook the jump from 1st Manassas
to Fredericksburg. Left me sitting there going, "Wasn't there just a
couple things in-betwen here? Like the Peninsula Campaign and the
Maryland Campaign?" I'm not overly fond of McClellan myself, but to
cut him out of the war entirely??
Interesting take on Jackson. I suppose that's why the Corbin Family
was in the film, to make Jackson look like he had a tender side.
Nothing against Jackson -- I've also been to Lexington, Guinea
Station, and visited Jackson's arm buried in the Wilderness. He was a
brilliant tactician, probably the best in the war. But he was also a
pitiless, humorless s.o.b. His men hated him.
n canfield
E. Carl Speros
exchanged was good also. The CSA grew loads of tobacco, but was
blockaded & received littel or no coffee much of the time & the Union
distributed lots of coffee to their men (keeping them alert on picket
duty etc.) Col. Lowe's "Intrepid" (balloon) & the one Longstreet had
made from southern belles' silk petticoats (downed on an island in the
James River) were great & I agree that Keach did a great job (I also
liked the scene when Lincoln & Keaches character test fired the Spncer
Repeating rifle) N&S, Glory & any of 1/2 dozen others beat G&G hands
down.
Live Simply..... That others might smply live "Now He
Belongs To The Angels".... Secretary of war Stanton's origional quote on
the death of President Lincoln (the next day he changed it to "Now He
Belongs to the Ages.") for the newspapers
Lancaster Civil War Round Table Website
http://community.webtv.net/GrayGhostYankee/TheCivilWarRound Carl
Speros webmaster.
Greg Heilers
> Hate to come so late to this discussion, but finally saw this movie on
> video.
>
> Pretty cinematography. Especially liked the scenes of the cavalry
> charges where the camera was moving right along with the riders.
> However, the long-shot battle scenes were a bit weird. I've been to
> Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, and though in the
> close-ups the scenes looked authentic, when they showed the panoramic
> charges -- the actual fields just don't look like that. They seemed
> computer-generated. IIRC, Gettysburg was the only battlefield with
> that kind of prairie-like sweep. And, Jackson's attack on Howard's
> position at Chancellorsville, while truly a clear and massive
> Confederate victory, was not quite the cakewalk Maxwell portrays. I
> think the film actually doesn't do Jackson's accomplishment justice --
> they made it look too easy.
>
The panorama shots were done by CGI. They may have looked "strange", but
since the actual sites in no way resemble the way they looked in
1861-1863, we can't really pick on this....
> The rest seemed pretty silly. Very sentimental, as opposed to really
> inspiring a true passion or emotion. I think Maxwell was just trying
> to press people's hot buttons.
I thought it was VERY passionate and emotional, and 100% believable.
The scene of the Jacksons praying with close "husband to wife" intamcy
......I swear that was my Aunt and Uncle.
>
> Personally, I don't care about "balance." I find that terribly
> politically correct and artificial. For example, what the hell was
> Chamberlain doing in this movie? He stood out like a poppy in a wheat
> field. The only person portrayed on the Union side. Not part of a plot
> or subplot, just there. And what was with Hood's USO Show? Expected a
> Bob Hope cameo, but got Ted Turner instead.
One might just as easily then ask Shaara why Chamberlain was in the
book. Mr. Turner's cameo was one of many. Sen. Phil Graham, as well
as Sen. Robert "I Was a Teenage Klansman" Byrd also were given cameos.
Mr. Turner can't be singled out, simply because one misses the other
cameos. And the "USO show" apparently really happened.
> Forgive me, but it's difficult to overlook the jump from 1st Manassas
> to Fredericksburg. Left me sitting there going, "Wasn't there just a
> couple things in-betwen here? Like the Peninsula Campaign and the
> Maryland Campaign?" I'm not overly fond of McClellan myself, but to
> cut him out of the war entirely??
Sharpsburg/Antietam was filmed. The character of "McClellan" is listed
in the credits for the upcoming "director's cut" (as well as Lincoln, Mrs.
Lincoln, Booth, and others...) Note that "Lincoln" as well as "Booth"
appear in the trailer on the DVD. Also note the several other shots
in the trailer, that do not appear in the current DVD release.
Check out the soundtrack CD. It includes a "bonus" DVD containing
omitted scenes of a music-oriented nature. The real gem is a beautiful
"Jim Lewis" scene...which will hopefully re-appear in the director's cut
DVD.
>
> Interesting take on Jackson. I suppose that's why the Corbin Family
> was in the film, to make Jackson look like he had a tender side.
> Nothing against Jackson -- I've also been to Lexington, Guinea
> Station, and visited Jackson's arm buried in the Wilderness. He was a
> brilliant tactician, probably the best in the war. But he was also a
> pitiless, humorless s.o.b. His men hated him.
The Corbin family is in Shaara's book, as well as Mr. Robertson's book.
In fact, the scenes between Lang, and Miss Jordan, closely mirror the
events as related in Robertson's book. (including the hat band, as well
as the paper-angels).
His men may have hated him...but the men hated Patton as well.....yet they
would march to the end of the Earth for either.
> n canfield
--
Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user
.....
"The way I see it, I figure the YANKEES had
something to do with it."
- Maj. Gen. George Pickett, when asked
where the fault lie for the Confederacy's
loss at Gettysburg
n canfield
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:30:05 +0000, n canfield wrote:
>
> > Hate to come so late to this discussion, but finally saw this movie on
> > video.
> >
> > Pretty cinematography. Especially liked the scenes of the cavalry
> > charges where the camera was moving right along with the riders.
> > However, the long-shot battle scenes were a bit weird. I've been to
> > Manassas, Fredericksburg, and Chancellorsville, and though in the
> > close-ups the scenes looked authentic, when they showed the panoramic
> > charges -- the actual fields just don't look like that. They seemed
> > computer-generated. IIRC, Gettysburg was the only battlefield with
> > that kind of prairie-like sweep. And, Jackson's attack on Howard's
> > position at Chancellorsville, while truly a clear and massive
> > Confederate victory, was not quite the cakewalk Maxwell portrays. I
> > think the film actually doesn't do Jackson's accomplishment justice --
> > they made it look too easy.
> >
>
> The panorama shots were done by CGI. They may have looked "strange", but
> since the actual sites in no way resemble the way they looked in
> 1861-1863, we can't really pick on this....
Just way too broad and flat. Some of the sites still do resemble the
battlefields, though now with a lot more trees, and in the case of
Fredericksburg, with a lot more town. Do believe the "canal" on the
F'bg battlefield was dry, too, even during the battle. There's also a
dip in the land, beyond the canal, and about effective rifle range
from the stone wall. You can hardly see it now because it's been paved
over in most places, and is part of peoples' back yards, but lots of
Yankees piled up there, most just wouldn't go much farther forward in
the face of Confederate fire. The Irish Brigade most closely
approached the wall, and the ones at the forefront didn't survive.
There were a couple structures of some kind on the field, one or two
still there. The close shots looked good. It was the very long ones --
looked like a stylized "battle map" type of thing and not the real
field. The scale was much too grand.
Same at Manassas. Those hills just aren't really broad enough to
provide such a nice clean avenue for such long, long battle lines as
were depicted in the movie. I can understand the technical
difficulties of trying to film these types of scenes, but even given
that, I don't think they were too close to authentic. Those charges
looked like they involved more men than Gettysburg. At Fredericksburg,
the Union regiments didn't go in all at once, or even at really
"regular" intervals. A ranger there told me he figured they had to do
something like 30 charges at Marye's Heights, and it went on all day
long. And that is no praise of Burnside or Sumner.
At Chancellorsville, there's no way the Confederates could have
sneaked up that hill without being spotted. Read in a couple sources
that animals -- deer, squirrels, etc. -- fled out of the woods first,
and that's what tipped Howard that the rebels were coming (since he
didn't believe other reports!). That would have made a nice shot.
>
> > The rest seemed pretty silly. Very sentimental, as opposed to really
> > inspiring a true passion or emotion. I think Maxwell was just trying
> > to press people's hot buttons.
>
> I thought it was VERY passionate and emotional, and 100% believable.
> The scene of the Jacksons praying with close "husband to wife" intamcy
> ......I swear that was my Aunt and Uncle.
Them praying together was nice, and probably pretty true to life. I
didn't find it particularly passionate or emotional. "Sweet" is more
accurate. Personally, I think Jackson was driven by the same kind of
fire that motivated John Brown, but that didn't come across in the
movie.
>
> >
> > Personally, I don't care about "balance." I find that terribly
> > politically correct and artificial. For example, what the hell was
> > Chamberlain doing in this movie? He stood out like a poppy in a wheat
> > field. The only person portrayed on the Union side. Not part of a plot
> > or subplot, just there. And what was with Hood's USO Show? Expected a
> > Bob Hope cameo, but got Ted Turner instead.
>
> One might just as easily then ask Shaara why Chamberlain was in the
> book. Mr. Turner's cameo was one of many. Sen. Phil Graham, as well
> as Sen. Robert "I Was a Teenage Klansman" Byrd also were given cameos.
> Mr. Turner can't be singled out, simply because one misses the other
> cameos. And the "USO show" apparently really happened.
Well, there's another question. Why was Chamberlain in the book? I'm
assuming Shaara included more on the Yankees to meet his own criteria
for "balance"? It's very, very hard to translate a book to the screen.
But once you decide to do that, you should at least try to make a good
movie, even if it doesn't include everything that's in the book. It's
like, if you're filming a sunset, and suddenly insert footage of
someone eating an ice cream cone at the beach. As part of the
audience, I'm looking at the person next to me and asking, "What the
hell?"
I'm not singling out Ted Turner, and frankly, I glad I missed the
other cameos! They didn't seem to have much to do with the plot or the
theme, so they probably would have come under the heading of more
irrelevant nonsense, depending on what Maxwell was going for. I'm just
saying the whole concept is pretty ridiculous if you claim to be
making a true-to-life epic about the Civil War, rather than taping a
scrapbook of people who funded it, or who happened to be wandering by
at the time. There are rules in art.
And by the way, what exactly was Maxwell going for? I don't know. It
wasn't apparent in the movie. As I said before, seems he was trying to
"humanize" Jackson. If that's the case, I didn't find it convincing.
Steven Lang was good with what he had to work with, but I didn't get
any paricular sense of character at all about Jackson from this movie,
as an individual. He loved his wife and children. Who doesn't? It's
all cliches. That's what I mean about sentiment vs. anything more real
or any deeper.
>
>
> > Forgive me, but it's difficult to overlook the jump from 1st Manassas
> > to Fredericksburg. Left me sitting there going, "Wasn't there just a
> > couple things in-betwen here? Like the Peninsula Campaign and the
> > Maryland Campaign?" I'm not overly fond of McClellan myself, but to
> > cut him out of the war entirely??
>
> Sharpsburg/Antietam was filmed. The character of "McClellan" is listed
> in the credits for the upcoming "director's cut" (as well as Lincoln, Mrs.
> Lincoln, Booth, and others...) Note that "Lincoln" as well as "Booth"
> appear in the trailer on the DVD. Also note the several other shots
> in the trailer, that do not appear in the current DVD release.
>
> Check out the soundtrack CD. It includes a "bonus" DVD containing
> omitted scenes of a music-oriented nature. The real gem is a beautiful
> "Jim Lewis" scene...which will hopefully re-appear in the director's cut
> DVD.
>
The Devil made me cut it? It was way too long as it is. I suggest
Maxwell could have cut instead all those dozens of interminable
"reaction" shots that just show people nodding their heads
meaningfully. Or take out the first 45 minutes. I don't recall
anything happening there that was indispensable to the rest of the
movie, or that couldn't have been capsulized in a couple lines of
dialog later on. And the fact that it's forgettable it says a lot.
>
> >
> > Interesting take on Jackson. I suppose that's why the Corbin Family
> > was in the film, to make Jackson look like he had a tender side.
> > Nothing against Jackson -- I've also been to Lexington, Guinea
> > Station, and visited Jackson's arm buried in the Wilderness. He was a
> > brilliant tactician, probably the best in the war. But he was also a
> > pitiless, humorless s.o.b. His men hated him.
>
> The Corbin family is in Shaara's book, as well as Mr. Robertson's book.
> In fact, the scenes between Lang, and Miss Jordan, closely mirror the
> events as related in Robertson's book. (including the hat band, as well
> as the paper-angels).
>
> His men may have hated him...but the men hated Patton as well.....yet they
> would march to the end of the Earth for either.
>
Who are the Corbins? People living in Fredericksburg. That's all I
know about them. That, and the fact that Mrs. Corbin, while evacuated,
somehow divined that it was the Union Irish Brigade who attcked across
once-lush cornfield. Spent the next couple of minutes wondering how
she'd know about that at the time. Did Jackson regularly "winter" with
them? Really, who the heck are these people and what have they got to
do with anything?
And, in the movie "Patton," Patton came across as much more of a flesh
and blood human being, too, and a true, rock-ribbed, hard-nosed s.o.b.
One reason "Patton" was a much better movie. You left that movie
understanding exactly why people hated him, and why his men would
follow him. Not true of "G&G."
n canfield
Greg Heilers
>>
>
> Who are the Corbins? People living in Fredericksburg. That's all I
> know about them. That, and the fact that Mrs. Corbin, while evacuated,
> somehow divined that it was the Union Irish Brigade who attcked across
> once-lush cornfield. Spent the next couple of minutes wondering how
> she'd know about that at the time. Did Jackson regularly "winter" with
> them? Really, who the heck are these people and what have they got to
> do with anything?
>
> n canfield
Okay, THAT family was the Beals. They actually existed, and Mrs. Beal
apparently kept an extensive diary during the war. I have never
read it, so can not give an opinion on it. "Knowing" of the presence
of the Irish Brigade does not seem too much of a stretch. Certainly
the "rumor mill" alone would have passed such information amongst
the town's citizens.
The Corbins are the other family in the film. Jane Corbin was the little
girl. She defintely existed, and had a relationship with Jackson, very
much as portrayed in the film. Her aunt did in fact marry Sandie
Pendleton, as well. The descriptions of the property (Moss Neck Manor?)
closely fit the descriptions in Robertson's book; down to the small
"guest quarters" that Jackson used as his office during the winter
they camped there.
n canfield
The main point being, none of this was clear in the movie, and neither
did Maxwell convince me to care much about it. Maybe you have to read
the book first before you can make any sense of it -- or maybe several
books. In which case, maybe Maxwell should offer a two-part deal: you
buy and read the book (there should be a quiz), and that gets you a
ticket to go and watch people act out disconnected parts of it in
living color.
Thumbs down, and I won't be buying the 6-hour version on DVD. Four
hours was plenty.
n canfield
Greg Heilers
>>
>
>
> The main point being, none of this was clear in the movie, and neither
> did Maxwell convince me to care much about it. Maybe you have to read
> the book first before you can make any sense of it -- or maybe several
> books.
Definitely several books, if that is the point. The "Beal" family, as I
remember, was not even present in Shaara's novel. The Corbins get just
a few pages in the novel, and a few more in Robertson's book.
Perhaps it was just Maxwell trying to appease those that complained about
"Gettysburg" not having any female speaking roles, nor "substantial"
non-military roles. In any case, the film gets better with repeated
viewings; and I think works MUCH better on the small screen. I have
viewed the DVD over a dozen times now, and it improves each time. The
only scene I have to skip through is the Jeff Daniels and Mira Sorvino
scene.
I had bought the soundtrack CD, before seeing the film in the theaters;
and was definitely "under-whelmed". Now, after closely scrutinizing it
a dozen times; I think it is superior to the "Gettysburg" score; just
more subtle. The cinematography is definitely better. And of course,
the costuming and makeup are vastly improved, especially in the
principles. The guys acrually get dirty in this film...lol.
I think the upcoming 6-hour version will add a lot to the production.
--
Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user
.....
Michael Furlan
Nice post in a thread that has yet to "play out" as some had feared.
Even though it was a pretty slow week, I, as usual had a hard time
selecting a post as "Best Of."
http://www.thecivilwargroup.com/
"Sgt. Pepper", R D Winthrop, Jack Maple,
JDzik
On 23 Aug 2003 01:55:07 GMT, "Greg Heilers"
gatt
> >> The rest seemed pretty silly. Very sentimental, as opposed to really
> >> inspiring a true passion or emotion. I think Maxwell was just trying
> >> to press people's hot buttons.
> >
> >I thought it was VERY passionate and emotional, and 100% believable.
> >The scene of the Jacksons praying with close "husband to wife" intamcy
> >......I swear that was my Aunt and Uncle.
Although it may be true that the Maxwell cranked the "sap" knob, it's
important for viewers to remember that there was a war going on, the nation
that folks like Jackson had sworn to defend was coming apart, people were
dying and times were tough. Given the lack of short attention span and
surrogate means of stimulation, and the documented fact that Jackson loved
his wife, it's entirely possible in Victorian society that this sort of
intimacy could exist.
The fact that it's in stark contrast to what we perceive as intimacy now is
what makes it all the more worthy of inclusion in the book, which, remember
is the source of the film.
> >Mr. Turner can't be singled out, simply because one misses the other
> >cameos. And the "USO show" apparently really happened.
Hood's Texas Brigade did indeed put on such performances as time permits.
Turner's conspicuous presence in the scene, however, cheapened it and
disrupted my suspension of disbelief. Especially given his clean-cut look
and Wal-Mart fresh uniform. It's kinda like when Ken Burns ran up to the
general in Gettysburg. It's simply one more thing that causes your mind to
go "this is a movie" instead of "this is the civil war."
>>>>He was a brilliant tactician, probably the best in the war. But he was
also a
> >> pitiless, humorless s.o.b. His men hated him.
I bought this as interesting character development. He's a "pitiless,
humorless s.o.b." who is so devastated by the losses in his own family
(particularly his previous wife and daughter) that the Corbin girl becomes
the outlet for everything he wishes he could have been for his own family.
Also (possibly, since it appears to have really happened), they may have
been the outlet for the emotional and intimate void that most men seem to
feel during war. In all wars, even married men have been known to seek
comfort from local girls to manage the loneliness and sorrow they inevitably
feel. A lesser man may have ignored the girl and developed a relationship
with the wife, but Jackson was a man of unquestioned religious devotion and
so this ideal southern family may have stimulated his own fantasies and
fulfilled his need for intimacy.
Good literary stuff. Unfortunately the overall quality of the movie was not
at a high enough level that viewers accepted it.
Has anybody seen the DVD yet?
-c
Greg Heilers
I have watched the DVD at least a dozen times. The movie is definitely
better on repeat viewings, and even better on the small screen. There
were a LOT of subtle things that I missed in the theatre. The "extras"
on the DVD package are weak however. The "commentary" by Maxwell,
Robertson, and McPherson; is at times interesting; but as in "Gettysburg",
only selected scenes are "commented" on, not the entire film.
Like I posted elsewhere, the best "extras" currently available, are
on a bonus DVD that is included with the movie soundtrack CD.
n canfield
> > >> The rest seemed pretty silly. Very sentimental, as opposed to really
> > >> inspiring a true passion or emotion. I think Maxwell was just trying
> > >> to press people's hot buttons.
> > >
> > >I thought it was VERY passionate and emotional, and 100% believable.
> > >The scene of the Jacksons praying with close "husband to wife" intamcy
> > >......I swear that was my Aunt and Uncle.
>
> Although it may be true that the Maxwell cranked the "sap" knob, it's
> important for viewers to remember that there was a war going on, the nation
> that folks like Jackson had sworn to defend was coming apart, people were
> dying and times were tough. Given the lack of short attention span and
> surrogate means of stimulation, and the documented fact that Jackson loved
> his wife, it's entirely possible in Victorian society that this sort of
> intimacy could exist.
>
> The fact that it's in stark contrast to what we perceive as intimacy now is
> what makes it all the more worthy of inclusion in the book, which, remember
> is the source of the film.
Certain this kind of intimacy existed pretty generally in the
Victorian era, or the human race wouldn't be here today :-) And I'm
certain most adults are aware of that. Was G&G a love story?
The point I was trying to make has more to do with the quality of the
movie, not "did it really happen" or "was it in the book" or "did
Jackson really have a softer side." All of that is irrelevant to a
discussion OF THE MOVIE.
As I watched that movie, I couldn't figure out who most of the
civilians were, what was their relationship to Jackson, or why they
kept wandering in and out. I thought they distracted from the main
story, until I realized, there is no main story. Really didn't
understand why Jackson was at all these kids' parties and all that
jazz while there was a war going on. Or was there a war going on? We
go from 1st Manassas to Fredericksburg. Made me stop and think,
whatever happened to McClellan?
So Antietam's on the CD. It's in the book. It's in Maryland. It really
happened. It doesn't count if it isn't an integral part OF THE MOVIE.
The audience shouldn't have to be psychic to make sense of the movie.
Judging by the rest of the film, disconnected scenes from Antietam
won't improve G&G anyway.
>
> > >Mr. Turner can't be singled out, simply because one misses the other
> > >cameos. And the "USO show" apparently really happened.
>
> Hood's Texas Brigade did indeed put on such performances as time permits.
> Turner's conspicuous presence in the scene, however, cheapened it and
> disrupted my suspension of disbelief. Especially given his clean-cut look
> and Wal-Mart fresh uniform. It's kinda like when Ken Burns ran up to the
> general in Gettysburg. It's simply one more thing that causes your mind to
> go "this is a movie" instead of "this is the civil war."
OK, it really happened. Everybody had a regimental band, too. Why not
do a documentary on that? What part of Jackson's character does that
demonstrate? What has that got to do with the battles at
Chancellorsville or Fredericksburg? Why was the scene in the movie?
Found it very weird, "OK, we're going to sing for you now," like all
of a sudden we're watching the Ed Sullivan Show.
>
> >>>>He was a brilliant tactician, probably the best in the war. But he was
> also a
> > >> pitiless, humorless s.o.b. His men hated him.
>
> I bought this as interesting character development. He's a "pitiless,
> humorless s.o.b." who is so devastated by the losses in his own family
> (particularly his previous wife and daughter) that the Corbin girl becomes
> the outlet for everything he wishes he could have been for his own family.
But it wasn't "developed." Jackson was portrayed simply a kindly
professor who happened to get tangled up in Lee's lofty strategies...
magically, somehow. All Jackson really wanted to do was make love to
his wife and raise a family, and apparently that's most of what he did
do during the war, according to Maxwell. Longstreet had a much more
tragic personal life, if that's the subject, but I guess that wasn't
in the book.
>
> Also (possibly, since it appears to have really happened), they may have
> been the outlet for the emotional and intimate void that most men seem to
> feel during war. In all wars, even married men have been known to seek
> comfort from local girls to manage the loneliness and sorrow they inevitably
> feel. A lesser man may have ignored the girl and developed a relationship
> with the wife, but Jackson was a man of unquestioned religious devotion and
> so this ideal southern family may have stimulated his own fantasies and
> fulfilled his need for intimacy.
>
> Good literary stuff. Unfortunately the overall quality of the movie was not
> at a high enough level that viewers accepted it.
>
> Has anybody seen the DVD yet?
>
> -c
Good literary stuff has to have a central conflict of some kind -- man
vs. the state, man vs. himself, man vs. man, man vs. his environment,
and the conflict has to be played out. That's what a story is. Despite
the fact this film was set in the Civil War and included battle
scenes, there's no central conflict, it's more like a slide show.
There's no cause-and-effect relationship between anything that
happens. Here's Jackson at a child's party. Here's Jackson talking to
General Lee. Here's Jackson being cheered by his men. Here's a picture
I painted of Marye's Heights. Here's a guy singing to Ted Turner. Who
was Jackson? After seeing this movie, I wouldn't know he'd made any
extraordinary contributions to the war, or why he was extraordinary in
any way, for that matter. Oh, and here's a few minutes of Chamberlain
to make it politically correct. Why couldn't these two nice guys just
get along? The answer to that would have made an interesting conflict,
but it wasn't developed, either.
G&G was silly, a very expensive mistake, and unfortunately, because it
was so bad and expensive, it might make it more difficult for even
good film-makers to get funding to make better Civil War movies.
I've heard "Cold Mountain" is going to be released soon. Can't say I
understood the book, but let's hope whoever's making that movie has
better insight than I do and makes a good story of it.
n canfield
gatt
"n canfield" <ncan...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> Certain this kind of intimacy existed pretty generally in the
> Victorian era, or the human race wouldn't be here today :-) And I'm
> certain most adults are aware of that. Was G&G a love story?
It's whatever Maxwell filmed it to be.
> The point I was trying to make has more to do with the quality of the
> movie, not "did it really happen" or "was it in the book" or "did
> Jackson really have a softer side." All of that is irrelevant to a
> discussion OF THE MOVIE.
But it was -in- the movie, which makes it relevant. Both Shaara and Maxwell
decided to devote attention to it, which means they spent a lot more energy
making it than the reader/viewer spends reading/watching it.
>. Really didn't understand why Jackson was at all these kids' parties and
all that
> jazz while there was a war going on.
'Cause, apparently, it happened. In literary terms it's called "character
development," which is largely absent in action films but much more
important if you're trying to do a study and exposition of one of the main
characters. There's NEVER any attention given in historical texts to
Jackson's human side. According to history, he was nothing more than a
lemon-sucking fundamentalist war-monger who stomped the Yankees and got shot
by his own men. Personally, I liked seeing something other than what I
already knew about him. Everybody already knows about Fredericksburg and
Chancellorsville
Or was there a war going on? We
> go from 1st Manassas to Fredericksburg. Made me stop and think,
> whatever happened to McClellan?
Was he in the book at all? (Was he in the war at all? He was the general
that got ran off the field every time he showed up, wasn't he? ;> )
> The audience shouldn't have to be psychic to make sense of the movie.
> Judging by the rest of the film, disconnected scenes from Antietam
> won't improve G&G anyway.
There aren't many people who would sit through three or more hours of
constant battle, and there were too many important battles for the ANV to
cover in three hours. A novelist or screenwriter knows you -have- to put
breaks between the action of the importance of the action is lost.
What blows me away is listening to people like Ebert saying what a great
movie Gettysburg and how GnG was aweful. I remember when Gettysburg came
out all the critics hated it.
> OK, it really happened. Everybody had a regimental band, too. Why not
> do a documentary on that? What part of Jackson's character does that
> demonstrate?
I don't think showing Hood's regimental band was supposed to have anything
to do with the development of Stonewall Jackson's character. Despite what
some civil war enthusiasts believe, there were other people in the
Confederacy besides Jackson and the other generals.
>What has that got to do with the battles at Chancellorsville or
Fredericksburg? Why was the scene in the >movie?
The movie is not called Chancellorsville and Fredericksburg so I don't
suppose they have to be related.
> Found it very weird, "OK, we're going to sing for you now," like all of a
sudden we're watching the Ed >Sullivan Show.
I doubt the tens of thousands of Confederate privates who fought one day and
enjoyed music the next and then fought again the day after that saw much
sense in it either, but it's a fundamental matter in the picture of the
civil war.
> But it wasn't "developed." Jackson was portrayed simply a kindly
> professor who happened to get tangled up in Lee's lofty strategies...
I would like to have seen more from the book about his poor teaching
abilities covered in the movie as well. Has nothing to do with
Chancellorsville, but I was disappointed that it was absent.
>. Longstreet had a much more tragic personal life, if that's the subject,
but I guess that wasn't
> in the book.
The tragedy of Longstreet's life was covered pretty well in The Killer
Angels so to include it elsewhere in the series would have been redundant.
> That's what a story is. Despite the fact this film was set in the Civil
War and included battle
> scenes, there's no central conflict, it's more like a slide show.
I agree with that. The emotional current that should have been there wasn't
hooked up. I don't think the problem was with the scene selection but with
the overall treatment of the movie. I don't think Maxwell was good enough
for the job, to be honest.
>After seeing this movie, I wouldn't know he'd made any extraordinary
contributions to the war,
But everybody already knows that...except, again, for the people who walked
out halfway through the movie because they were offended by the suggestion
he wasn't out whippin' the black cook or something.
> G&G was silly, a very expensive mistake, and unfortunately, because it
> was so bad and expensive, it might make it more difficult for even
> good film-makers to get funding to make better Civil War movies.
Sadly, I very much agree with you there.
> I've heard "Cold Mountain" is going to be released soon. Can't say I
understood the book, but let's hope >whoever's making that movie has better
insight than I do and makes a good story of it.
Nicole Kidman. I'll be surprised if I pay attention to what the movie's
actually about. :>
-c
Greg Heilers
> << n canfield >>
>>. Really didn't understand why Jackson was at all these kids' parties and
> all that
>> jazz while there was a war going on.
>
> 'Cause, apparently, it happened. In literary terms it's called "character
> development," which is largely absent in action films but much more
> important if you're trying to do a study and exposition of one of the main
> characters. There's NEVER any attention given in historical texts to
> Jackson's human side. According to history, he was nothing more than a
> lemon-sucking fundamentalist war-monger who stomped the Yankees and got shot
> by his own men. Personally, I liked seeing something other than what I
> already knew about him. Everybody already knows about Fredericksburg and
> Chancellorsville
>
>
Well, I do not recall any "kid's parties" in the film; just the several
scenes with Jane Corbin. These were mentioned in Shaara's novel, and
detailed further in Robertson's text. Remember, the film is just as
much based on Robertson's text, as it is on Shaara's novel.
>
> What blows me away is listening to people like Ebert saying what a great
> movie Gettysburg and how GnG was aweful. I remember when Gettysburg came
> out all the critics hated it.
>
Actually, if I recall, Ebert actually gave "Gettysburg" a "thumbs down",
with a caveat that "reenactors will like it". Has he changed his opinion?
Siskel gave it a "thumbs down" as well. I wonder what Rex Reed thought of
"Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals"...as if we have to guess!...lol
> -c
gatt
Hey, folks. Just caught Jeff Shaara on BookTV (CSpan2.) He talked about
the book and movie quite a bit. He said a lot of cool things germaine to
this discussion, namely
"Gods and Generals wasn't just about soldiers, it was about families,"
and, to paraphrase, ' a lot of people think of him (Lee/Jackson? that's
where tuned in) as a Bible-toting wimp, but you have to think of him in
terms of the time. It was not uncommon in those times to see a man carrying
a Bible everywhere he went.'
Also, he talked about why he didn't include battles such as Antietam.
Fredericksburg was there because, as he said, it was the first time the
central generals in his book were on the same battlefield.
Last notable quote (I wrote down) was, with regard to a question on states'
rights, was (paraphrasing) that before the civil war people spoke in terms
of "the United States are..." and afterward they speak of it in terms of
"the United States IS..." meaning, it was common to speak of the collection
of states in the plural rather than as a single, unified nation.
Unfortunately it sounds like Turner has decided to s-can "Last Full
Measure."
-gatt
Jack Maples
>
> Unfortunately it sounds like Turner has decided to s-can "Last Full
> Measure."
I have several friends who were in the movie (one had a speaking role)
who talk with Maxwell quite often. The common thought is that "Last
Full Measure" will be made only if the "theatre" and "director" (due
out in November) cuts generate enough revenue. It appears to be a
money thing as Maxwell and Turner who are serious CW enthusiasts are
personally committed to making the trilogy.
Jack Maples
Ja...@ConfederateStories.com
Greg Heilers
I have confidence it will be made someday. I think the DVD sales, both
the current release, and the upcoming expanded edition, will demonstrate
enough interest. I can't imagine the "money" alone being Mr. Turner's
primary concern. He has always seemed to be a free-spender. He always
bragged about how much money he lost, on a daily basis, from CNN. He
apparently will maintain a "project", even if it is not a big success,
money-wise.
n canfield
Saw this show, too, and found it very interesting. Sounded to me that
he was trying to distance himself from the movie G&G. Mentioned he had
no part in the screenplay, and a lot of scenes were taken from another
book. I don't think he liked the movie, either, and doesn't appreciate
it as a representation of his book.
Appropos of comments from your earlier post about the movie, you still
don't "get" what I'm talking about. I have close friend who has two BA
degress and a MA in subjects other than history. The CW came up in
some discussion, and this friend looked at me and asked -- "Now was
Lee with the North or South?"
The people on this list can assume that everyone knew who Jackson was,
everyone knows about McClellan, Fredericksburg, Antietam, but it just
ain't so. And if you're making a movie for release to the general
public, you can't make those kinds of assumptions.
I didn't read the book G&G, didn't read the other book that G&G is
based on. Far as I could tell, the movie G&G was a Maxwell's
impressions of a segment of the CW. Not even written like a feature
film. And it's really not worth arguing about.
n canfield
gatt
"Jack Maples" <ja...@ConfederateStories.com> wrote in message
Shaara said that he hadn't talked to Maxwell about it but that Turner had
told him that based on the poor earnings and reviews for GandG he could
invest money in LFM.
I'm not sure if this was a "live" interview or not but it was pretty recent
because he was talking about footage on the new DVD in a different segment.
Shaara said 'nobody in Hollywood is going to touch somebody telling the
truth about the Civil War so unless Turner invests, it won't get done.'
Wonder what he thinks about Cold Mountain.
Help us Nicole Kidman. You're our only hope.
-c
Howard G
You watched this 219 minute [3.65 hour] bomb 12 times? Instead of money you have
time to burn.
I could watch it only once in 30 minute bites over two weeks. If I'd rented the
DVD I'd have returned it unviewed, but I bought it as a promotion for less than
$5.00.
Great scenery in wide screen, and filmed on actual locations, supposedly.
The deathbed scene was not portrayed with the emotional force that the words,
"Let's cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees!" would suggest.
And just think, the stretcher bearers didn't drop him once, the falls probably the
real cause of Stonewall's death.
gatt
"n canfield" <ncan...@ameritech.net> wrote in message
> Saw this show, too, and found it very interesting. Sounded to me that
> he was trying to distance himself from the movie G&G. Mentioned he had
> no part in the screenplay, and a lot of scenes were taken from another
> book. I don't think he liked the movie, either, and doesn't appreciate
> it as a representation of his book.
I agree. He didn't downplay the movie directly, but neither did he endorse
it. The impression I got is that he was being kind to Maxwell and Turner.
> Appropos of comments from your earlier post about the movie, you still
> don't "get" what I'm talking about. I have close friend who has two BA
> degress and a MA in subjects other than history. The CW came up in
> some discussion, and this friend looked at me and asked -- "Now was
> Lee with the North or South?"
*eeeeeek* I suppose he hadn't watched either movie, but I see your point
wrt peoples' general understandnig of history. My answer would probably
have been "He fought on the British side," and my wife would have kicked me
beneath the table. Ignorance is the playground of a fiendish mind.
> I didn't read the book G&G, didn't read the other book that G&G is
> based on. Far as I could tell, the movie G&G was a Maxwell's
> impressions of a segment of the CW. Not even written like a feature
> film. And it's really not worth arguing about.
Okay...if you haven't read the book you probably couldn't enjoy the Jackson
stuff. I highly recommend reading G&G. Not the greatest, but it's got a lot
of meat, and you can definately see what Maxwell was trying to accomplish.
The Shaaras have proven to be much better writers than Maxwell and Turner
are movie makers. I guess I kinda prefer it that way.
-
Greg Heilers
>> >cameos. And the "USO show" apparently really happened.
>
> You watched this 219 minute [3.65 hour] bomb 12 times? Instead of money you have
> time to burn.
>
Yep, usually while doing work on the computer, or in "historical
miniature" sessions at the desk. Most people model/sculpt/paint to music;
whereas I do it to movies (or baseball).
:o)
--
Greg Heilers
SlackWare Linux user
.....
gatt
"Howard G" <Rambl...@att.net> wrote in message
news:3F5E3123...@att.net...
> The deathbed scene was not portrayed with the emotional force that the
words,
> "Let's cross over the river and rest in the shade of the trees!" would
suggest.
I've always wondered whether these heroic dying phrases uttered by officers
in their last, weak moments of delirium were some sort of fabricated
Victorian legends made up to glorify the deceased.
I may be incorrect but unfortunately I have just enough experience watching
somebody die slowly to know that they're usually to weak to mutter or gasp
out more than a few syllables. I had bronchitis while in the Marine Corps
and as in shape as I was then there's no WAY I could have wheezed out that
sentence. I wasn't Stonewall but I wasn't dying of it either.
Not to downplay Jackson, but somebody who is succumbing to pnemonia and
whose chest muscles would have been nearly torn by the sheer, unceasing and
prolonged effort to take breath after shallow breath, and whose lungs were
filled with fluid, would not be able to say "Come let us cross over the
river and rest under the shade of the trees."
Ask anybody who is suffering from severe bronchitis, mild pneumonia or basic
asthma to say the phrase.
"Come *gasp* let us *gasp* cross *gasp* overtheriver... *gasp*..." There's
just not enough air in the lungs.
Not saying it didn't happen, but it just couldn't have happened every time
some much-beloved officer had taken his dying breath and yet it seems that
every hero has some great dying phrase for us to remember them by.
Scribe7716
wrote:
>I've always wondered whether these heroic dying phrases uttered by officers
>in their last, weak moments of delirium were some sort of fabricated
>Victorian legends made up to glorify the deceased.
>
One of the better examples of this that I have come across was the death of
former CSA Maj. Gen. Thomas C. Hindman.
Hindman was shot after war, hit, according to his biographers by both buck and
ball in the neck and jaw. His windpipe was severed, and there was massive
internal bleeding.
Despite those wounds, according to those same biographers, Hindman spoke at
some length with friends and family. He made arrangements to help his family
in his absence, urged those there to "unite their courage and determination to
bring peace to the people," forgave whoever shot him, and forgave everyone for
everything. Only then did he get down to the business of dying.
How he managed this with a buckshot riddled jaw and a severed windpipe has
always been a source of wonder to me.
Pincus
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 00:25:01 +0000, gatt wrote:
>
> > << n canfield >>
> >>. Really didn't understand why Jackson was at all these kids' parties and
> all that
> >> jazz while there was a war going on.
> >
> > 'Cause, apparently, it happened. In literary terms it's called "character
> > development," which is largely absent in action films but much more
> > important if you're trying to do a study and exposition of one of the main
> > characters. There's NEVER any attention given in historical texts to
> > Jackson's human side. According to history, he was nothing more than a
> > lemon-sucking fundamentalist war-monger who stomped the Yankees and got shot
> > by his own men. Personally, I liked seeing something other than what I
> > already knew about him. Everybody already knows about Fredericksburg and
> > Chancellorsville
Actually, much of what Maxwell filmed was invented, especially the
Jane Corbin stuff. Although he did play with the child, he never
romped around playing hobby horse in front of his entire staff.
Jackson's learning of Corbin's death was equally over-inflated to tug
at the heart strings.
On another note, Jackson did not attend the Christmas party, which
would make the caroling scene a tad unhistorical.
If you were to read Robertson's bio, you will find surprisingly little
about Big Jim. What isn't surprising is the almost total lack of
historical sources for the movie scenes of Stonewall and Jim together.
Pure invention except for the death scene.
> >
> > What blows me away is listening to people like Ebert saying what a great
> > movie Gettysburg and how GnG was aweful. I remember when Gettysburg came
> > out all the critics hated it.
> >
>
> Actually, if I recall, Ebert actually gave "Gettysburg" a "thumbs down",
> with a caveat that "reenactors will like it". Has he changed his opinion?
> Siskel gave it a "thumbs down" as well. I wonder what Rex Reed thought of
> "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals"...as if we have to guess!...lol
Informed minds? Here's the last paragraph of Ebert's review, a decided
thumbs up:
Maxwell deserves credit for not hedging his bets. This is a film that
Civil War buffs will find indispensable, even if others might find it
interminable. I began watching with comparative indifference, and
slowly got caught up in the majestic advance of the enterprise; by the
end, I had a completely new idea of the reality of war in the 19th
century, when battles still consisted largely of men engaging each
other in hand-to-hand combat. And I understood the Civil War in a more
immediate way than ever before.
Siskel was equally impressed.
Of course, that counters the movie-makers' argument that there was
some liberal cabal trying to torpedo GAG because it showed the South
in a flattering light.
Cold Mountain will do in 15 minutes what GAG failed to do in four
hours, namely provide for the viewer a truly realistic rendering of
Civil War combat. Be prepared to be devastated.
n canfield
>
> Cold Mountain will do in 15 minutes what GAG failed to do in four
> hours, namely provide for the viewer a truly realistic rendering of
> Civil War combat. Be prepared to be devastated.
Have you seen Cold Mountain? Has it been previewed or released
anywhere? Don't recall CW combat in the book, except the "paterollers"
rounding up deserters and such. Doesn't mean they couldn't throw in a
scene to give some idea of what Inman had been through. Matter of
fact, that might be a good idea.
Who's playing Inman? Heard they offered it to Tom Cruise, but he had
scheduling conflicts or something, and I actually pictured Inman as
taller and skinnier.
n canfield
Tom Przybylski
>
>
> Who's playing Inman? Heard they offered it to Tom Cruise, but he had
> scheduling conflicts or something, and I actually pictured Inman as
> taller and skinnier.
See the link for the Internet Move Data Base entry for Cold
Mountain: http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0159365/
Inman is played by Jude Law.
- Tom
Pincus
I just finished writing an article about the movie for a CW magazine.
I interviewed a number of the tech people and historians behind it and
I've seen stills of the action. They've recreated the Battle of the
Crater.
Michael Furlan
Generals", and for the taste of the upcoming "Cold Mountain."
http://www.thecivilwargroup.com/
JDzik, Greg Heilers, Bert , Walter Miller
Harold Brooks
Howard G
> [snip]
> They've recreated the Battle of the Crater.
Figuratively or literally? If the latter, will it be an annual reenactment?
Pincus
The movie begins with a brutal recreation of the Battle of the Crater.
And unlike the made for TV set pieces that passed for combat in
Gettysburg and GAG, this one is going to drive home to the viewer what
the soldiers of the Civil War really went through.
The movie-makers went to great lengths to make the battle and the
soldiers historically accurate. They hired three well known
historian/reenactors and one of the top--if not the top--CW artists
who also happens to be one of the top uniform/accoutrements experts.
They all agree that the battle footage is spectacular.
gatt
"Pincus" <she...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> Cold Mountain will do in 15 minutes what GAG failed to do in four
> hours, namely provide for the viewer a truly realistic rendering of
> Civil War combat. Be prepared to be devastated.
About damned time. How do you know this?
-c
>
gatt
"Pincus" <she...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> The movie-makers went to great lengths to make the battle and the
> soldiers historically accurate. They hired three well known
> historian/reenactors and one of the top--if not the top--CW artists
> who also happens to be one of the top uniform/accoutrements experts.
> They all agree that the battle footage is spectacular.
WOOHOO!
I've hoped that the success of Saving Private Ryan would open the door for
depiction of combat the way it ought to be.
Thanks for the info. Can't wait to see the movie.
-c
Pincus
I'm sorry, I thought I had posted this. I wrote an article for an
upcoming North&South magazine on Cold Mountain's journey from a
conversation between and dad and his son to a major motion picture
release. I interviewed a number of people involved with the
production, including all those involved with the battle reenactment.
Needless to say, I was pretty impressed and oddly relieved, especially
after the major disappointment of GAG. My view is that the makers of
GAG could have destroyed anyone's interest in making a Civil War film,
but Cold Mountain may, in some small way, mitigate the disaster of
GAG.