Gods and Generals review and reactions?

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
One does have to admit, though, that one of the main differences between Gettysburg and G & G is that Gettysburg was more balanced.
No I don't -- it's not true.

The Southerners are, in several cases, painted as buffoons (Pickett and Kemper).
In G & G, you go a good 45 mins to an hour before a Northerner becomes a sympathetic character. In the first Bull Run scenes, the Northern soldiers are just so much grist for the mill. At Fredericksburg, it is pretty much the same thing except, that by now, Northerners can at least root for Chamberlain and the 20th ME. Because of their inactivity at Chancellorsville, the 20th ME is hidden from view, and the only characters to care about are Lee and Jackson.
Again, not true. The truest heartstrings are pulled for the two slaves, for the Jacksons (Mr and Mrs), and for the little girl (the latter admittedly later in the movie).
As much as I love the opening credits with the flags, after that, the movie doesn't even act like it cares about Northern soldiers and their cause(s).
I guess as a Southerner, we're used to this. The argument doesn't move me.
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
Jeff,
I don't think one could watch Gone With the Wind or Birth of a Nation (as old as they are) and conclude that they are anti-Southern. As a matter of fact, until many of the John Wayne cowboy movies of the 1950s and 1960s, I can't think of very many Civil War movies with one side's sentiments over anothers except for Red Badge of Courage, Disney's movie about the guys who stole "The General", and Johnny Shiloh.
The reason why I mentioned John Wayne is because in most of his movies he is a former Union soldier, exceptions to that are in El Dorado, The Searchers, True Grit (where he portayed ex-Confederates). In Sons of Katie Elder, nothing is said one way or the other, except we all know that they are Texans. On the other hand, there were movies like Alvarez Kelly (which I enjoyed a great deal), Journey To Shiloh, The movie with Jimmy Stewart as the Virginia farmer, where the main characters were basically pro-Southern. How the West Was Won had a very brief ACW scene, mainly to get George Peppard into the Union Army for character development. Movies like North and South and Blue and Gray had characters with divided loyalties.
Gosh, I could swear I said "for the last 50 years..." Tom, you know that the South has been vilified to no end, and the comments on this site prove the point. How many Northerners were able to name a Southern commander they respected in the poll you ran a couple of months ago? I'll give you a clue -- more said that the South was "the most evil government ever" (or words to that effect). That's the result of a slanted education. When you see G&G on DVD and watch the interviews at the end, both of folks who played slaves say the same thing -- so it's not just me being a wacky Southerner. :cheeky:
Regarding that Burns guy, while as Northerners we were glad that a movie finally was released about the war with real characters, as midwesterners many of was were a bit dismayed that the only Western battle that was portrayed in any sort of depth was Shiloh. Battles like Pea Ridge got no mention at all, and Perryville, Iuka and Corinth got only passing mention by Ed Bearss. Chickamauga and Chattanooga received a little more attention than the normal western fight.
Apologies for not putting Ken Burns full name earlier -- I couldn't remember it.

Apologies again, but I don't understand the context of the rest of your paragraph.
I saw G&G in the theaters (2x) and several times on HBO, so I did not see any interviews. I was holding out for a full six hour version to include 2nd Manassas and Antietam before buying a copy. One movie I left out was Glory which was pro-Union.
Roger. Unfortunately I have only seen the DVD. The commentary is excellent and well worth watching. You may want to borrow it and take a look -- I really think you'll enjoy it.
 
Last edited:

Cdubb23

Recruit
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Location
Colorado
Country
llUnited States
last_cav1971 said:
The South, it seems, will always be vilified. I will, however, defend her til the day I die.

Mark
Deo Vindice
You aren't alone. God Bless the South, without it there'd be no sweet tea...
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
No I don't -- it's not true.

The Southerners are, in several cases, painted as buffoons (Pickett and Kemper).
And the architect of the Union defense for the final two days of the battle and the commanding General of the AotP (Meade) gets approximately 2 minutes of camera time. And the statements he makes overstate the obvious. Some Union officers are painted as buffoons, too (the guy who delivered the 2nd ME to Chamberlain, and Devin and Gamble are not painted as geniuses, either). I don't think that Kemper comes off as a buffoon, just as a one note Charlie for his "Cause".


Janos said:
Again, not true. The truest heartstrings are pulled for the two slaves, for the Jacksons (Mr and Mrs), and for the little girl (the latter admittedly later in the movie).
But these people are not Union soldiers. I said something about Union soldiers not being sympathetic characters until you see Chamberlain, some forty five minutes afterthe movie starts.

Janos said:
I guess as a Southerner, we're used to this. The argument doesn't move me.
If you were to say that about the movie "Glory", I'd have to say, yes. After Gettysburg, I came to expect better of Ron Maxwell. Again though there had been movies about the Southern side of things. For all of their lack of historic truth North and South and Blue and Grey made sure that the Southern side of things was told. How about The Hunley? Even in Andersonville, they had the actor William Macy explaining the Southern side as Wirtz's superior. Even in the fifties there were movies about the raid in New Hampshire and Quantrill's Guerillas, and what about The Outlaw Josie Wales (1970s). There was even a TV series in the fifties about The Grey Ghost, himself. I also go back to Alvarez Kelly. And what about The Undefeated? Before you start complaining about the lack of publicity the South gets I'd say there were plenty of movies with Southern sympathies mentioned throughout.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
Gosh, I could swear I said "for the last 50 years..." Tom, you know that the South has been vilified to no end, and the comments on this site prove the point. How many Northerners were able to name a Southern commander they respected in the poll you ran a couple of months ago? I'll give you a clue -- more said that the South was "the most evil government ever" (or words to that effect). That's the result of a slanted education. When you see G&G on DVD and watch the interviews at the end, both of folks who played slaves say the same thing -- so it's not just me being a wacky Southerner. :cheeky:
You don't think that things like the Klan's involvement in the South (and Indiana, even), and anti-Black laws that existed and so on have done anything to with that image (right or wrong), do you? Regarding the Northerners in my poll, I don't think we had another (until Mike Duffy came on the board) that would honestly answer a question like that (I thought better of the other Northerners than maybe I should have). My poll was intended to get everyone soul searching about guys on the other side - even if one "grudingly" admires a general from the other side. Sort of like me being a lifelong Bear fan wishing we had Barry Sanders as a successor to Walter Payton.


Janos said:
Apologies for not putting Ken Burns full name earlier -- I couldn't remember it.

Apologies again, but I don't understand the context of the rest of your paragraph.
I was aware of a Southern backlash against Burns mini-series and thought that's what you were driving at. There was also a backlash here in the midwest, stemming from his lack of concentration on events happening in the Western Theater of the ACW - that's what I was driving at.


Janos said:
Roger. Unfortunately I have only seen the DVD. The commentary is excellent and well worth watching. You may want to borrow it and take a look -- I really think you'll enjoy it.
I'm holding out until the six hour version is released before I buy it. One of my other complaints of the film is that it was very obviously chopped up to fit into a 3:30 time. If nothing happens soon as far as the six hour version, I may rent it, anyway.
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
You don't think that things like the Klan's involvement in the South (and Indiana, even), and anti-Black laws that existed and so on have done anything to with that image (right or wrong), do you? Regarding the Northerners in my poll, I don't think we had another (until Mike Duffy came on the board) that would honestly answer a question like that (I thought better of the other Northerners than maybe I should have). My poll was intended to get everyone soul searching about guys on the other side - even if one "grudingly" admires a general from the other side. Sort of like me being a lifelong Bear fan wishing we had Barry Sanders as a successor to Walter Payton.
I admit here as I admitted there that I had to go find out about some Northern Generals, so I guess I'm in the category at the end of your paragraph :D .

I disagree completely with your lead-in though. In the 1920s, the KKK was stronger in the North than in the South. Today, the head of the KKK lives in Wood River, IL. That's just more of the anti-Southern stuff that we see on TV and movies all the time.
I was aware of a Southern backlash against Burns mini-series and thought that's what you were driving at. There was also a backlash here in the midwest, stemming from his lack of concentration on events happening in the Western Theater of the ACW - that's what I was driving at.
Good point. Thanks. I was unaware of the Midwest attitude towards Burns I prefer Mr Burns from The Simpsons to this one).
I'm holding out until the six hour version is released before I buy it. One of my other complaints of the film is that it was very obviously chopped up to fit into a 3:30 time. If nothing happens soon as far as the six hour version, I may rent it, anyway.
I propose a compromise for your viewing pleasure. Rent it or borrow it, but just watch the commentary at the end.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
I disagree completely with your lead-in though. In the 1920s, the KKK was stronger in the North than in the South. Today, the head of the KKK lives in Wood River, IL. That's just more of the anti-Southern stuff that we see on TV and movies all the time.
I just checked mapquest about the location of Wood River, IL. It is near St. Louis, MO in the far sw portion of the state. It is on a latitude probably farther south than parts of Virginia. Thus it is no shock that the Klan could have a leader that lives there. That does not account for the fact that the Klan had its roots in Southern territory. If I'm not mistaken, its HQ is still in Atlanta, GA. I think the only northern state it really flourished in was Indiana. Not that there aren't similar groups with their militias up here.
 

Mike Duffy

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2004
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Location
Chicago
Country
llUnited States
Janos said:
I disagree completely with your lead-in though. In the 1920s, the KKK was stronger in the North than in the South. Today, the head of the KKK lives in Wood River, IL. That's just more of the anti-Southern stuff that we see on TV and movies all the time.
Just as a bit of clarification, the original Klan was more or less eliminated by the Federal occupation troops in the 1870's, but similar groups like the Red Shirts in Couth Carolina carried the same anti-black/anti-Yankee "message" well into the 1900's. The Klan was reconstructed in 1915 by William Simmons in Indiana more or less because of Griffith's movie Birth of a Nationand also the Mary Phagan murder and it quickly grew until it literally ran several state governments. The "new" KKK was more anti-Catholic, fundamentalist, and nativist in nature, but it collapsed in 1925 when its grand poobah was accused in a sensational rape-murder case. It never again achieved such popularity, and the various "Klans" are today a mere shadow of its former self(thank God).
 
Last edited:

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Tom DeFranco said:
I just checked mapquest about the location of Wood River, IL. It is near St. Louis, MO in the far sw portion of the state. It is on a latitude probably farther south than parts of Virginia. Thus it is no shock that the Klan could have a leader that lives there. That does not account for the fact that the Klan had its roots in Southern territory. If I'm not mistaken, its HQ is still in Atlanta, GA. I think the only northern state it really flourished in was Indiana. Not that there aren't similar groups with their militias up here.
I apologize. I was unaware that Illinois is now a Southern state :D
 

Janos

Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2004
Messages
354
Reaction score
0
Location
Combat Military Training Center, Hohenfels, Bavari
Country
llUnited States
Mike Duffy said:
Just as a bit of clarification, the original Klan was more or less eliminated by the Federal occupation troops in the 1870's, but similar groups like the Red Shirts in Couth Carolina carried the same anti-black/anti-Yankee "message" well into the 1900's. The Klan was reconstructed in 1915 by William Simmons in Indiana more or less because of Griffith's movie Birth of a Nationand also the Mary Phagan murder and it quickly grew until it literally ran several state governments. The "new" KKK was more anti-Catholic, fundamentalist, and nativist in nature, but it collapsed in 1925 then its grand poobah was accused in a sensational rape-murder case. It never again achieved such popularity, and the various "Klans" are today a mere shadow of its former self(thank God).
Thank goodness. My understand was the the original KKK was eliminated by the end of reconstruction, when it was no longer needed.. Be that as it may, thank goodness they are not around in the numbers now they were 80 years ago.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
Janos said:
I apologize. I was unaware that Illinois is now a Southern state :D
Let's see now, we are talking about an area in Illinois just over the MO border near St. Louis, not far southeast of there is Little Egypt, where the only family known to own slaves lived prior to the ACW. This is the area, where Illinois farmboys leaning towards the south joined the 10th TN. And again, Southern Illinois extends farther south than portions of VA. I'll let you be the judge as to whether there was and/or is any Southern leanings down there.

It is similar to the situation that Mike Duffy was explaining. The man that he was talking about was DC Stevenson, originally a salesman from Evansville, IN. The Klan picked that location in IN to recruit from because it was the Southernmost city in the State.

The southern areas of these midwestern states were a lot more influenced by slaveholding KY than they were by the more Union siding state governments.
 

nreese21

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2004
Messages
129
Reaction score
0
Location
Illinois, USA
Country
llNorway
the reason why it is probably more Confederate focused is because Ted Turner is a big Civil War buff. Not only that, but he is from the South. This was a good movie, just WAY too "wordy" in my opinion.
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
nreese21 said:
the reason why it is probably more Confederate focused is because Ted Turner is a big Civil War buff. Not only that, but he is from the South. This was a good movie, just WAY too "wordy" in my opinion.
My take on its pro-Southern stance is Bud Robertson (who wrote a 1997 biography of Jackson. It was a very favorable bio.). When he heard about the movie being made, he rushed to the set. It stopped being a movie about the four lead characters and quickly became a biopic of Jackson which failed to show either his best or worst days during the war. My other knock on the movie is that it made the war look like the fighting in the East was all that was going on at the time and, thus that the South was winning the War. Ted financed the film and obviously didn't have any qualms about its political leanings, but I don't think he influenced Ron Maxwell's direction - I think that was the aforementioned Robertson, who otherwise is a very good historian, as he stresses the sacrifices of both sides, but I'm not sure of his "awareness" of the importance of the Western battles.
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
413
Reaction score
0
Location
Fairfax, Va
Janos said:
The Southerners are, in several cases, painted as buffoons (Pickett and Kemper).
I don't know that much about Kemper, but lets face it Pickett was a buffoon. In 1859 he nearly started a war with England over a pig. He didn't finish at the bottom of his class at West Point for no reason.........
 

last_cav1971

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2004
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
West Virginia
Country
llUnited States
James Robertson is an excellent authority on the War. His biography on Jackson is probably the foremost resource on 'Stonewall'.
He is/was a professor of history at VA Tech. That may be why he chose to write on the subject he did.

Mark
Deo Vindice
 

Tom DeFranco

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
435
Reaction score
0
Location
Norridge, IL
last_cav1971 said:
James Robertson is an excellent authority on the War. His biography on Jackson is probably the foremost resource on 'Stonewall'.
He is/was a professor of history at VA Tech. That may be why he chose to write on the subject he did.

Mark
Deo Vindice
No argument there. My only knock about the Stonewall book is that it is probably a little too gushing - in terms of heaping maybe too much praise on Stonewall. He went too easy on him during the Seven Days, for example. Other than that, I think very highly about Robertson's ACW knowledge and his ability to convey that knowledge to others.

What I was trying to point out was that when, on Maxwell's website, it was announced that the movie would get made and that Stonewall would be a major character in it, Robertson went a bit overboard in defending his favorits subject, almost to the point of deifying the guy.
 
Top