Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
Like I’ve said before, you couldn’t drag me to a four hour film about the Civil War. Growing up in the South is like one long ponderous lesson on that particular conflict, and I don’t feel the need to sit for that long in the theater watching a reproduction of it.
On the other hand, today’s first scooper sure seemed to enjoy himself when he saw the film...
Hi Harry,
Yesterday Jeff Daniels hosted the Michigan premiere of “Gods and Generals” at the historic Michigan Theater in Jackson, Michigan. Proceeds for the event went towards Jeff’s Purple Rose Theater and the restoration of the Michigan Theater. The atmosphere was great with reenactor ushers escorting the VIP attendants (people who paid $250 per ticket to see the movie and have dinner with Jeff afterwards), as well as regimental drilling on the street outside of the theater. President and Mrs. Lincoln were on hand, and the crowd was treated to a concert before the movie by the 5th Michigan Regimental Band. Several reenactor groups were represented (among them the 7th Michigan and the 4th Georgia) as well as a color guard provided by the Sons of the Union Veterans, Austin Blair Camp No. 7. The movie was kicked off with a speech by Jeff Daniels, and specially filmed introduction by Ted Turner for the Jackson showing.
To be honest, I was incredibly excited for this movie, and when I saw that you had posted a review, I read it immediately. Your review was a little disheartening, first because you panned it, and second that you had given considerable praise to such movies as “Gone With the Wind” and “The North and the South” not to mention your listing of “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly” as a Civil War movie. I was also perplexed that a 3 hour movie would bother you, considering both Lord of the Rings movies were at least 3 hours. But I pressed forward, still intent on seeing Maxwell’s vision for not only the troops and battles (as we saw in “Gettysburg”) but for his vision of the culture of the time—women, children, and slaves.
What can be said of “Gods and Generals”? WOW. That movie is one of the most richly detailed, poignant, and powerful Civil War movies ever. It was obvious from where I sat that the director, cast, and crew all took painstaking efforts to not only recreate, but recapture this bygone time. The sets were impeccable, the realism of the uniforms beyond criticism, and even with what liberties were taken this movie stands out as a remarkable achievement as both a film, and as a looking glass on 1860 America and the war that defined that era.
This movie did a much better job of presenting the various cultural aspects and the issues involved than other movies about this era. It did not have the romanticized Antebellum South of “Gone with the Wind” or the soap opera feel of “The North and the South”. Nor did it present the Civil War in black and white, as the issues that were at stake were more than just slavery. It showed the thinking of the time in the south that a person’s country was not the US, but their state. It also showed the initial war as one of preserving the Union. Slavery did not come up at length until later in the movie with some dialogue from the slaves that appeared in the movie, and with the Emancipation Proclamation being mentioned.
All of the actors were incredible in this film. Jeff Daniels was superb as Col. Joshua Chamberlain, and Robert Duvall was a much better Gen. Lee than Martin Sheen ever was (Duvall gave Lee power and credibility, over Sheen’s Lee who was in a religious trance through most of Gettysburg). However, the movie belongs to Stephen Lang as Gen. Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. He was a revelation, he captured the scenes, and outside of Duvall (during any of his brief scenes on film, my eyes always came back to Duvall…no matter who else was on screen), no other person commanded more attention in the movie. I tried to picture Lang as Pickett (the character he played in “Gettysburg”, but he was so immersed in the role that I couldn’t do it).
The highlight of the movie was the Battle of Fredericksburg. This military debacle that should never have occurred has become the most poignant and powerful battle scene ever filmed. The Irish Brigade’s charge in the face of the Irish defenders on Marye’s Heights brought tears to my eyes. Of the three major battles included in the movie, Fredericksburg was the most complete, but the most intense buildup has to be Chancellorsville. This battle shows the true and utter horror that was the Civil War as Union troops are mowed down in their camp.
All in all, this film is incredible, and the more I think about it, the more I am in love with the grandeur and intimacy of this film. My only complaints are really brief in nature. Stephen Lang was great as Jackson, but many of his quirks and eccentricities were left out of the movie. Obviously this made the character more accessible to the audience, but I would have liked to have seen more of it. I felt the cinematography was astounding, but the town of Fredericksburg looked like a matte painting. Also, there was so much that was left out of the movie, things like the battle of Antietam and the Angel of Marye’s Heights.
I walked out of the movie emotionally drained, but excited about our country and about history. This is the best Civil War movie ever made, surpassing “Gettysburg” and “Glory” (both of which I considered the best movies about the Civil War). I cannot wait to see the six hour version when it is released on DVD, and I cannot wait for the final movie in the trilogy “The Last Command”.
Thanks for listening Harry.
Respectfully Submitted,
Private Pnakotic
Not convinced? Check out how giddy this next guy is:
Hey guys! This review is a bit different that some of the reviews posted on your site, but I love AICN and felt y'all should get my view on it. So here it is:
I had the pleasure of attending the World Premiere of this film in DC on the 10th. I was happy to discover that this film is what I would call I genuine movie going experience: one of those rare occasions where you can forget that you're watching film stock with actors and fancy yourself in the world created. I had my suspicions and fears going in, but can honestly say I wasn't prepared for the film that it turned out to be.
The beginning is simple, with a gorgeous quote about "home" from George Eliot, and the very haunting, heartwrending strains of a song called "Going Home" by Mary Fahl. It then merges into fluttering flags of various regiments historically represented in the film. Quite the opening.
First to address something a lot of people have touched on: the film does start and stop from scene to scene very quickly, in other words the cuts between scenes are very fast and abrupt. But this didn't bother me in the slightest. It occurred to me while watching that it moves very much like the chapters in the book itself do. I can see how it might be jarring for someone not familiar with the characters or book to find the beginning of the film confusing, but what I found that to be was a simple character set up. The film is enormous, so by systematically and bluntly introducing characters early on, one after another after another, etc etc, it helped introduce the pace of the film. That was something that reminded me of the way the book was laid out. Whether or not it was done on purpose I'm not sure, but I had no problem with it. So, as with many screen adaptations, I think this is the part of the film, and the only part of the film, that would have helped if you had read the book first, since you know what they had left out, and how the story is set up. But that's only the first 20 minutes or so, after that I found that the movie took on it's very own path. They leave out the Hancock/Armistead relationship entirely, they skip a year, they never once mention the Valley Campaign, or Second Manassas, or Antietam, or the Peninsula. Yet despite all this, it still stayed true to the book in many ways thematically, style wise, and character wise, though I'm sure people more familiar with the book than I am will probably say otherwise. I sensed that Maxwell had decided he had to choose the story he was going to tell, and tell it with as many extra storylines that he could fit in there without making the film seem unfinished. And that's exactly what he does. The end result is a symphony of characters, storylines, and themes.
Another aspect that I actually liked, and may lend itself to the fact that I'm a female, is the civilian aspect. The civilian costumes were horrible, and the accents weren't to good, and the acting was a bit over the top, but I liked it. I think it worked very well, and gave the film another, human, layer to it.
I feel the need to mention that this movie is not refined. It's a bit awkward, it's not a Stanley Kubrick or Martin Scorsese movie; something that has no visible seams. It can seem a bit preachy at times, some of the costumes are silly, some of the acting is off, the scene changes sometimes feel like what you just saw didn't really get a chance to soak in, and sometimes the music doesn't really fit what you're seeing onscreen. But, for me at least, it all eventually worked itself out.
The film IS about Jackson. I think they make that very clear from the beginning on, though, as I said, they have many different storylines going. Most of which eventually flow into Jackson's character, or Chamberlain's character. Chamberlain is really the only other person who's life we get a separate glimpse of. Lee is a supporting character in this film. Hancock is introduced slightly. And while watching we are aware by the end of the movie that they go on to other pursuits and challenges later on. As you know, all three of these characters go on to have their own cinematic monologues in `Gettysburg' and we are reminded of this at the end of the film as a note scrolled across the screen saying that G&G was the first in a trilogy of Civil War films, including Gettysburg and Last Full Measure. The idea is a bit akin to a Civil War `Lord of the Rings' style movie trilogy. Jackson on the other hand, has no part in the other stories, so essentially, this is his film, and a lot of that credit goes to Stephen Lang.
I've heard it been said before, but Stephen Lang IS Jackson. I've never seen such a larger than life, real person embodied so intensely and completely. The casting in this film, for this character, was smart. By getting a relatively unknown character actor to fill the part of a historical, enigmatic, giant. Lang, eccentricities, speaking patterns, praying styles, and all grow on you. This man has done an incredible job. Jackson comes across as a sometimes intensely cold, strange, distant man, often afraid to feel, yet can be overcome by his feelings for his wife, and his daughter, a little girl he befriends, his respect for his men, and his love and faith in God. And where this accomplishment is 90% Lang, kudos to Maxwell are in order for setting up, from the beginning of the film key aspects that flesh out Jackson's character. I don't want to give away too much, but we witness an execution of Jackson's men, and by using Sandie Pendleton's character (in a wonderful performance the whole film through by Jeremy London) the filmmakers reflect the contrast between a `normal' reaction and Jackson's complex and cold demeanor. And after one of Jackson's generals is mortally wounded, he softly and gently goes to speak and comfort the man, saying how he will pray for him. As he walks out, one of his staff mentions the chaos of the battle and the ransacking of Fredericksburg, and how do they intend to stop it. Lang chillingly repeats one of Jackson's famous lines, that they would simply kill them all. Lang's immersion in the character is so complete, that even though I was anticipating the line, it was the character saying it. Not an actor saying a line to represent a famous historical figure. To top the scene off, the score plays softly, menacingly, as the camera pans away as the stunned staff watches the general slowly walk away, erect, with his hands behind his back. These are the kinds of details that fill the movie.
To get back to the acting, it's not only Lang who shines. Jeff Daniels returns for a fantastic performance, his monologue about Ceasar's troops as they march off to battle is chilling and perfectly suited for the character (a verbose rhetoric professor), and Daniels' stage acting skills shine through as he recites the verse while watching the members of Irish Brigade charge to their deaths (and we see, as they edited the uphill charge with Daniels' speech). The whole scene is goosebump inducing. In another scene, where Chamberlain gives his brother Tom a lecture and talks about what he's fighting for and the men involved, he mentions, wisely, how `every soldier out there is a whole person' with their own lives and people who love them. He's entirely convincing in a scene that could have been performed very badly, and is also one of the only insights into the Union cause. But because of his performance, what he says resonates strongly throughout the rest of the film.
Robert Duvall is just how you'd imagine him to be Lee. You get a great, respected, icon of a dramatic actor, to play `The Marble Man' and half the effect is already done. Duvall acts the rest perfectly, and provides a great support to Jackson's storyline.
Other kudos go to Sean Pratt as a perfect Dr. Maguire, Jeremy London as Sandie Pendleton, Stephen Spacek as James Smith, and Frankie Faison as Jackson's cook, Jim. C. Thomas Howell returns with another endearing turn as Tom Chamberlain, and Kevin Conway as the savvy and wise Sgt. Kilrain. Matt Lescher as Col. Adelburt Ames shines in smaller supporting role. Donzaleigh Abernathy supports a separate storyline all by herself, and does a superb job of it. Kali Rocha is good as Jackson's wife Anna, and fills her role well. Mira Sorvino has exactly two scenes, but she actually makes great use of them, despite a bad Maine accent and a distracting wig.
Now comes down to the theme of the film. This movie does not attempt to smooth over anything, but it's actually lightly political. Every character has a legitimate say as to their lot in life and why they stand where they stand. There is no argument about who was right and who was wrong. There are no apologizing or blaming modern messages coming through. The film belongs to the characters and depending on what character is in focus, that is the point of view you get. Whether it be Chamberlain, or the slaves, or Jackson.
The film, without a substantial use of blood and gore, gets the idea of the tragedy of this war across. There's a scene where Col. Ames is reading off a letter from Lincoln after Fredericksburg, and in the letter it is mentioned that though all the men were noble, the casualties were comparatively moderate, and Buster Kilrain mentions `compared to what?....the French at Waterloo?'. It's an ironic cinematic statement. We've just scene rows of men mowed down, and shots of men scattered about a field. We've seen Chamberlain and his men use bodies as shields, and then this letter comes in. Early on in the film, the camera gently pans and fades in and out of different, random, men in Virginia giving up their work in whatever they are doing, picking up their guns, and going off to muster in. It's a great technique which produces a beautiful and sad set of shots, as we realize where these men are coming from. Later on we see that one of Chamberlain's men, a student of his, asks for permission to go to the rear, and his arm has been blown off. The film also briefly and sporadically follows two soldiers as they go through the battles.
The battles themselves are superbly filmed. They obviously put a lot of thought into these scenes. First Manassas is and average battle scene, but Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville surpass it. The crowning moment of the battle of Fredericksburg is the charge of the Irish Brigade. With ease, it moves swiftly along with extensive tracking shots. Then we see that it's the Rebel Irish, the 24th GA, who are firing at them. As the camera moves from the Irish Brigade's emerald flag, to the Rebels' Irish flag, and we hear remarks from both sides, I could hear the audience start to sniffle, and I teared up. The effect is entirely stirring, startling, and tragic, it sends chills up your spine. What Pickett's charge in the Gettysburg film was, the charge of the Irish Brigade is here (strangely enough, in the film Gettysburg, we have the Union line chant `Fredericksburg' at the retreating Rebels). It's just history, bluntly and plainly filmed. The battle doesn't stop there, though. Chamberlain's men see some action, including them using dead bodies as shields, and then when they see the Aurora Borealis, where all the characters, North and South simply look up, silently, not one word, spellbound, as the scene softly fades.
The battle of Chancellorsville is just as well choreographed. In the same tracking, graceful style, we see each regiment come out of the woods silently. And, in an amazing shot, just when you wonder how many men there are, we see Jackson emerge, and all to the right of the screen we see thousands of soldiers emerging noiselessly. The rest of this battle is fantastic, with the various shots and angles utilized. This and Fredericksburg are some of the best battle scenes I've ever watched.
The dramatic scenes in the film work beautifully. There are many, many moments in this movie that are touching and hit you. Most of them concerning Jackson, but all of them wonderfully executed. This is a drama about people and their pain, not a dry historical film. The score by John Frizell and Randy Edelman, for the most part perfectly suits the film. Sometimes it sounds a bit odd or out of place, but it usually reconstitutes itself into the scene for a greater effect. The cinematography by Kees Van Oostrum is stunning. He captures the gorgeous landscape of where this war took place, thus adding, at least for me, a new layer: how could such a horrific war take place in such a beautiful place? Costume design is so, so, sometimes awful, sometimes great; but the production design, interiors and exteriors (save many a scene with tents where tents would not be) is wonderful, and had the look of a museum.
This film is, thematically, dark. It is somber, and it is intense. It's extremely sad, foreboding at times, but it's not depressing or, substance wise, hard to watch. Despite some of the blatant costume mistakes (hey, a lot of the beards looked great!), watching it felt like an immersion into another era and the lives of people not so different than ourselves. It's an epic, colorful, mournful cinematic experience that captures a slice of life. It's not a film for everyone: it's nearly 4 hours long, intensely historical - from the romantic Victorian dialogue to various references to literature and politics, but it has an immense human value to it that I believe anyone can relate to. And despite it's sometime rough hewed edges, it feels completely heartfelt, I think it is an ode to history.
I know many, many people will have a problem with it for many, many different reasons, and I can see why, but I think it has done a beautiful job of presenting history and the characters of our past in a way that shows them as complex, feeling human beings like ourselves, and cineplexes around America should be glad to have a drama that is, at very least, an intelligent, beautifully acted, and historical, no matter what the sum of it's imperfections, to replace TRASH like "Kangaroo Jack" and "National Security" that fills theaters all year long.
Warmest regards,
Mercy Bell
And this last guy? Not a fan, actually. Here’s why:
Hey Harry,
I just saw Gods and Generals at a preview screening put on by a local radio station here in San Diego. I must say, I was really disappointed in this flick. I knew it was going to be four hours long, and I'd read some slightly negative reviews here, but I figured I'd give it the benefit of the doubt. And it was free.
Well, to start off, I thought it did a couple things well. First, while I'm no Civil War expert, it seemed as though it was really accurate. And if not, then they did a great job of making it seem accurate. Second, several performances were well done. Robert Duvall was good as Robert E. Lee, in his, oh, about 8 minutes of screen time. Stonewall Jackson was well done (can't remember the actor's name) as well. And Jeff Daniels was pretty good in his role also, despite the pointlessness of it (More on that below). I also enjoyed the sneak attack toward the end, which finally employed some decent music and battle action.
Now to cover the bad parts, which unfortunately was most of the film. As has been stated before, there is simply too much crammed into this already bloated film. They attempt to cover so many aspects of this war that the movie often ends up becoming incoherent and plain boring, with either a meandering or non-existant narrative. There are many, many scenes, characters, and moments that could have, and should have been cut. As good as he was, the Jeff Daniels story really had no point. He performed the part well, but seeing as how the movie focuses mainly on Stonewall Jackson, Daniels' character was superfluous, and not developed enough to truly show the Union's side of the story. And this leads to another problem, which was that it seemed as though the story was trying to get us to empathize with both sides. This becomes a problem when in the beginning we see soldiers from the South being killed, and the North is supposed to be the enemy. Then we're supposed to shift gears and feel bad for the North as they are killed, and the South becomes the enemy. Had they cut out the north entirely as a protagonist, and focused entirely on Jackson and the South as the good guys, I think it would have benefited. Especially since the film spends much more time on the South anyways. Another issue was that the battles were far too tame. The lack of any signs of the casualties of the war, aside from some bodies, lessened the impact and importance of what happened on those fields. Continuing with fat that needed to be cut, the whole family in town with the little girl was pointless. At one point, when the family hurries into an ambulance to be taken to safety as their town is attacked, I hoped a cannonball would land right in the middle of the freakin' wagon. And I don't think thats the feeling they wanted. And the girl never even explained the significance of the stupid Christmas ornaments! Again, pointless. That was the main problem with this movie, too much added material that may have flowed better in the initial 6 hour cut, but this was not the 6 hour cut. It was the 4 hour cut, and saying it'll be better on the DVD is a lame excuse. One last gripe: Every character in this movie must have attended the School of Monoloques, Speeches, and Bible Recitations. Every 20 minutes some character was preaching about one thing or another. Whether it was God, freeing slaves, or the apparent significance of Santa's sled, it got to be annoying and bothersome. Did people actually talk like that? Have we just become dumber so that we no longer spontaneously begin some eloquent monologue on the injustice of humanity? Anyways, long story short: It wasn't very good. The best thing I can say about it is that I saw it for free.
If you see fit to print this, call me Sam Lowry.
Sure thing, Sam. Pleasant dreams, man.
"Moriarty" out.
