Gods and Generals

[Darth Viscera]

A prime example of marshal beauty! This movie was excellent, and I believe it properly conveyed the sense of what the Civil War really was like.

The music was good, but not great. John Williams was excellent in doing the score for the 1993 movie, but for some reason or another, he is long gone in this movie.

One thing that annoyed me slightly was the change in cast. Stephen Lang did such a marvelous job as Pickett in Gettysburg that it was almost intolerable to see Pickett played by anyone else. I can see now why Tom Berenger declined to play Longstreet-it's a very small role, and Jackson is really the star of the film. However, it was very refreshing to see those cast members who DID return to portray the same guys as they did 10 years ago.

The issue of slavery is dealt with responsibly, intellectually, and without any venom, political correctness, or other assorted mindless propagandizing jibba-jabba.

There is one scene during Marye's Heights where the Damnyankee Irish Brigade comes up against the 22nd Georgia Confederate Irish regiment, both of which have harps on their flags, and the 22nd Georgia, which is deeply fortified, lays withering fire on their damnyankee counterparts. The emotionism there could be construed as slightly daft when one pistol-armed confederate Lieutenant starts crying in the middle of the battle, but it was fitting.

They got a few of the dates wrong, dates which even the book that the film is based on got right. Chamberlain offered his services to Maine roundabout July 1862, not 1861, and they were barely able to attend Antietam in September 1862, much less depart from the training camp in the spring of 1862.

However, if you're not a civil war buff, don't dare go see this film. Furthermore, don't even dare to assume that you're qualified to critique it. I've honestly had enough of history no-nothings saying that everyone looks gay. It was a grandeloquent time. Grandeloquent, not gay, you utter smacktard. If you think that "Traveler" is likely the codename for President Lincoln, given to him by his security agents, and can't understand why on earth a Virginian would call his wife by the mexican word "Esposita", then no, you cannot sit through this 4 hour film. Sorry, it's reserved for us buffs only :)

Notable Quotables: (to the best of my recollection)
"Did you expect the Virginia Legislature to give you your very own personal tent?"
"This army's got blue uniforms, grey uniforms, tan uniforms, even red uniforms. How the devil are we supposed to know who to shoot at?" - "Dummy, just shoot at whoever's shooting at you!"

I could say a lot more about this movie, but so many things spring to mind that it would take forever. If you, like me, think that the Civil War was awesome, then about face, forward march.

Bravo to Ron Maxwell!

[CMJ]

John Williams didn't do the music for the 'Gettysburg'. ;)

I'm planning on seeing this one. Not sure how I'll react since several key battles were left out. No Seven Days, no Second Manasas, no Antietem....

[Taylor Millard]

Nope twas Randy Edelman. Who did the music for Gods and Generals too.

[Gabran Darkysa]

Dropping a quick note in thread -- I haven't been able to get out to the theatres lately. I am hoping to see it this week tho. Great post Vis!



Been collecting DVDs especially Akira Kurosawa films!

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by Taylor Millard
Nope twas Randy Edelman. Who did the music for Gods and Generals too.

I didn't know that. The mp3s for the gettysburg soundtrack were titled John Williams - General Lee at Twilight, etc etc, so I thought that John was the person who did them. They sure sounded good.

@CMJ

Yeah, that sucked that they skipped right through Seven Days (the de facto crisis of the early Confederacy....and the point where Bobby Lee got to earn his wings). I can see why they skipped Second Manassas if they were concentrating solely on Jackson, because the man was absolutely exhausted during that battle and thus not up to his usual proficiency, his men were out of ammo, and it was Longstreet who saved the day with his flank-smashing juggernaut.

BUT HOW THE DEVIL COULD THEY HAVE LEFT OUT ANTIETAM?!!?

*band strikes up "Maryland, my Maryland"*

Also, they really missed an opportunity to shine the spotlight on Robert E. Lee. I mean, he was only the most beloved American general in our history.

[CMJ]

One of the reasons I am hesitant to see it is they focus on Jackson(from what I hear). I personally think Lee would've been more interesting to focus on. From what I've read it seems they kinda make Lee out to be the beneficiary of Stonewall's brilliance.

Also it seems with the North we only see Chamberlein. No officer higher up than him gets much screen time(which was one of my only quibbles with 'Gettysburg' to be honest).

[Darth Viscera]

Well, Lee did benefit greatly from Jackson. Lee only started losing after Chancellorsville.

They focus a bit on Hancock, too, and show a bit of insight into Gen. Sideburns' pickled ineptitude when crossing the river. Apparently he had enemies at the War Department, and so the pontoon bridges' transports were not expedited, so they came in 3 weeks after the most opportune time.

[CMJ]

Lee might have only started losing after he lost Jackson, but I think it's more of a coincidence than anything. Heck Lee depended greatly on Longstreet as well.

Stonewall wouldn't have made a difference once Grant came on the scene IMHO. Lee whipped Grant in basically every battle they fought(or at the very least fought him to a draw). Grant, unlike most generals, kept advancing even as he would get thrashed.

Grant didn't win the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor, etc.. Jackson being alive might have lengthened the war, but the South was gonna lose. The North had practically every material advantage. It was through Lee's genius(along with his Corp commanders) that kept the South alive for so long. There's no way they should've lasted four years.

[Darth Viscera]

Originally posted by CMJ
Lee might have only started losing after he lost Jackson, but I think it's more of a coincidence than anything. Heck Lee depended greatly on Longstreet as well.

Yes he did, for defense and counterattacks. Longstreet could be counted on to dig transverse trenches and shatter an attack as it began to reach his lines.

Lee was more inclined to the attack, however, which made Jackson a perfect match for him. Had Jackson been present at Gettysburg, during the late first day the high ground would have been captured by the confeds at Jackson's behest. Just having the high ground there would have all but guaranteed victory, and since Jackson was on the field with the largest amount of strength in his wing since Fredericksburg, the battle would have likely ended in a federal rout. Bobby Lee would have paid a visit to President Lincoln after some business with the Washington City defenses (notably the Heavy Artillery, which was scavenged months after by Grant to provide himself with extra infantry).

I must say though, it's a good thing that the Confederacy was lacking Jackson on the first day of Gettysburg. The C.S.A. and the U.S.A. would have made bitter enemies of each other after the war through separation, and the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century would have been eras of blood and tears in North America. You can bet your butt that the first atomic bomb wouldn't have fallen on Hiroshima.

Noting that, perhaps it was the divine intervention which Jackson believed in so fervently that resulted in him crossing over the river and resting under the shade of the trees.

[CMJ]

This all conjecture since we never arove at this point, however...

Even IF the Confederates had routed The Union army at Gettysburg I don't think the South would've ultimately won the war. I think Lincoln woulda skipped town(much like Madison in the War of 1812) before Lee and co. sacked Washington.

At the same time Grant captured Vicksburg. Basically at this point strategic advantage is a push. The Confederates would be chasing what's left of the Army of the Potomac around while the Union controls the Mississippi. Either Grant or Lee would most likely be called by Davis or Lincoln to help ease the threat posed by the opposing army deep within their country's boarders.

The war might have gone on another few years.

[Darth Viscera]

You're not taking into account the fact that the north was teetering on the edge in the war, draft riots in New York. After such an extroardinary string of defeat after defeat, I don't think that the north would have continued on with Confederate troops marching around on Pennsylvania Boulevard, with the U.S. Congress and Senate on horseback flying to Philadelphia. Those congressman who would have escaped, that is. IMO, it would have been the death of a very unpopular war. The people of the U.S. would not have supported it any further.

[Diego Van Derveld]

Gotta love talking about the War of Northern Aggression.

[Darth Viscera]

General Jackson always had a lemon in his mouth-he was continuously sucking on lemons. Turns out that a man in Florida was the mysterious person who kept shipping crates of them to the General.

They should have concentrated a bit more on Lee's reaction to the plundering of Fredericksburg. Lee was FURIOUS about that. I believe it was Lee's father-in-law who had had a house in Fredericksburg filled with all sorts of Washington memorabilia (he was related to Washington), and when he died that house became the property of Lee. I believe that they plundered that house too, and much of George Washington's little trinkets and pieces of memorabilia of him were destroyed.

[CMJ]

There's no way Lincoln would've surrendered. The only way the South would've won is if Lincoln had lost the election in 1864(which he almost did anyways if not for Sherman and Atlanta). But the War would've lasted until 1865 regardless whenever the new President took office.

Lincoln believed in the Union above all else. He would never have surrendered.

[JonathanLB]

Interesting discussion.

One thing is for certain, the South had a hell of a lot better leadership and managed to win almost every single battle in a pure numbers comparison. It's rather remarkable that two sides, one with apparently better supplies (the North), could have really the same types of equipment, though, and that one side would lose like 30% more men every battle. That is just pathetic leadership.

If the North had Lee, or had some other excellent generals earlier in the war, I bet it would have ended quickly. Instead, the South, with fewer supplies and less men, still managed to put up a pretty good fight, hehe.

[CMJ]

In the more "northern theatre" you're correct Jonathan. In the southern campaign Grant and Sherman dominated the Grey commanders on the whole.

They were far and away the best the North had. It just took Lincoln awhile to realize it.

[JonathanLB]

Sherman is the brand of ice cream I have on my cake, but ok.

Haha, j/k. Yes, I know. :)

[Darth Viscera]

In 1863, Lincoln's popularity wasn't exactly through the roof. If he wouldn't have ended the war in the winter of 1863, with the Confederate army camped in Washington City winter quarters and patrolling all the way up to Harrisburg and beyond (at this point the Union lacks a field army in the Eastern theater, Army of the Potomac having been destroyed at Gettysburg, ceasing to function as an effective fighting force), then he would have been impeached.

And if he wouldn't have been impeached, France and the British Empire had ambassadors and other diplomats sitting in Washington City and Richmond, eager to negotiate a peace on the basis of separation now that the rebels had won a strategically decisive victory. Lord Lyons was waiting for just that visit from Lee to his Washington City embassy.

Heck, the French almost negotiated a treaty with the Confederacy following the Chickamauga campaign, but once the campaign deteriorated, they withdrew. They were speaking to President Davis in Richmond daily.

[JonathanLB]

Ok final say from everyone, put simply, in a sentence or two.

SHOULD I SEE THIS MOVIE in theaters now, or should I try to rent it when it comes to DVD?

I missed it last weekend, was going to see it, but it was so long that I didn't have time with the other obligations I had of mine (twelve-page film essay, some Netflix movies, and some other films for my Eng 110 class that I have to write journal entries on, blah blah etc.).

I noticed Old School did really well last weekend. It seems like I should see it, even though I was going to skip it, because if I saw Dark Blue and The Life of David Gale, the two lesser grossing films, it seems odd not to see the more popular and widely viewed film, although I did miss Kanagaroo Jack (was not going to go there). lol.

[Darth Viscera]

If you like the civil war and read books on it, you should see the movie.

[CMJ]

I guess we just diagree Viscera. I think even a defeated Army of the Potomac would reform, it was just plain too big. Lee wouldn't have completely destoyed with a win in Pennsylvannia.

The North fought the CW with one hand tied behind it's back. A southern victory at Gettysburg would have rallied the Pro-War people(admittedly a severe minority at this point), and the Army of the Potomac would attack again. I don't think you give Meade and co. enough credit.

Again, you make solid points though, and really this is one of those pointless debates. No one will ever know either way what would happen in some parallel universe.

I'm thinking of seeing G&G today(going back to the original point of the thread).