Review Archives

1 | 2 | 3

Today's Date is:

Gods and Generals

"Gods and Generals" is probably the most beautiful movie ever made. Unfortunately, it is hard to avoid qualifying that statement by adding that it isn't quite a movie at all. The catchphrase of the film is "historical accuracy", and if we've ever wondered if historical accuracy can go too far, we have our answer. Much attention is obviously paid to making sure that things look just so, but apart from the slapping together of some awkward, and not truly relevant, dramatic overplay, very little attention is focused on making a movie out of what we're doing. ***

"Gods and Generals" is the prequel to "Gettysburg", and we enter the picture at the first stages of preparation for war. The first thing we see is Robert E. Lee turning down the invitation to command the Union forces, and it's not a bad introduction to the film. We soon switch gears, and discover that Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson is going to be the main focus of the film. We don't have to wait long for our first battle, and by the end of it, the movie is on the road to being quite a good one. ***

The problem is that by the end of this first battle we are not far at all into the film's near four-hour span, and things decline rapidly, and steadily for the rest our tour of duty. The true plot arc of the movie begins and ends with the Battle of Fredericksburg (though I don't know if that's what it's called, historically), with the battle before and the battle after being just so much intro and denouement. Once the movie leads us toward the first hints of Fredericksburg (and possibly before), it becomes immediately apparent (if it wasn't from the film's title) that what we have here is far more along the lines of a Civil War buff's ultimate fantasy than a movie. The battle scenes make this blatantly obvious by going on so long they lose all hope of being interesting. If it is historically accurate that the Union Army's idea of a really good move was to march like morons straight up a hill toward the thoroughly entrenched enemy so as to nullify any hope of victory, then you have to represent that in your movie. Having to watch wave after wave get mowed down for more than 30 minutes is another thing altogether. At some point can't we just get the idea? ***

The battle scenes though, are not the root of the movie's flaws. Had the movie otherwise worked, the battle scenes could have been forgiven. No, the real flaw is in the characters, specifically in that there aren't any. Lee starts us off pretty well. Even in the beginning, he is only giving a speech, and not really speaking, but it is within a context that gives it some sense of reality. But, the movie never shifts out of this mode. No one, in any situation, ever speaks as though they aren't on a podium, and thus the movie has no characters, only ideals. To some degree we can forgive this sort of pedestal display for the likes of Lee and Jackson, but when everyone, everywhere can only manage to speak by quoting the Bible, or as though hoping to have their words end up on a plaque, it becomes unforgivable for a movie. It may well be 'historically accurate' that no one (be they husband and wife alone at home, common soldier on the field, or even slave) during the Civil War ever opened their mouth without sounding like they just swallowed the complete works of Shakespeare, but it doesn't make a good movie. As I say, there are no characters, there are only ideals. The question, attempts at historical accuracy notwithstanding, is not, "what might this person have said in this situation," but "wouldn't it be great if this person had said this?" ***

Thrown into this situation, this pseudo-human mythos, are the snippets of drama that are intended to delve into these characters. The speeches (the ones that are actually speeches, not just the speeches that are what happen whenever anyone opens their mouth), the struggle as two men must leave their wives, the attachment of Jackson for a small girl after he learns his wife has had a daughter. These especially maudlin bits of 'humanity' that are meant to play counterpoint to the horrors of war are left hollow and meaningless when put into the realm of these people who aren't people. ***

"Gods and Generals" attempts to deliver the most accurate portrayal of events possible, and from the standpoint of what actions take place, I'm sure it does. But, it also succumbs to its own title in delivering the characters, their motivations, and their personal actions (those that aren't recorded anywhere). What we see is (I have no reason to doubt) very near to exactly what happened. Who we see is the stuff of legend. The movie doesn't even want to argue that point. It is clearly setting out to display legend, and legendary people. Perhaps all these people really acted just as they did in this movie, but if so, then the thing becomes all the less real by being more so. The movie cannot hope to engage viewers, because it isn't about people. ***

On the plus side, it is amazing visually. The period is recreated wonderfully, and as much attention is paid to overall presentation as is paid to accuracy. The battle scenes may fail as far as the artistic choices, but there is no fault to the technical details. *** Ultimately, "Gods and Generals" makes me think of "The Patriot", mostly because 'historical accuracy' is mentioned so often with regard to both. Of course, in the case of "The Patriot" it is always used negatively, that movie often being scoffed at for its historical inaccuracy. I certainly didn't love "The Patriot", though I like it quite a bit better than many, but whether it be accurate or not, or in the end, good or bad, at least you can watch the thing. ***

"Gods and Generals" aims at being something so historically accurate that it can be used (in a far more serious sense than any other movie) by Civil War classes, and it aims at being appreciated by the most serious of Civil War buffs. Of course, it makes some slight attempt at actually being a movie as well, but you can hardly notice. The truth is, this might fairly easily have been the sort of movie it thinks it is, but it goes too far. It's so far overboard in its quest to remain true to the events and the mythos, that it is no longer a movie about the Civil War at all. It is a movie buried alive by its own fanatic zeal. It is a movie by, for, and somehow apparently about Civil War fanatics. It is, to throw out an admittedly odd analogy, not a movie about "Star Trek", or even perhaps a "Star Trek" movie, it is a movie about a "Star Trek" convention. -

The DVD offers a visual experience with as much attention to detail as the movie itself. The transfer is nothing short of amazing, delivering a vivid visual experience. No focus is lost anywhere, and even in the most hectic moments of battle the audience loses nothing, and there are no flaws such as one might expect from a DVD transfer less than the best possible. ***

The sound and soundtrack make good use of the Dolby 5.1 presentation. The soundtrack is occasionally overbearing, and there are a few, rare moments when the dialogue is rather more muffled even than what we presume to be purposeful battlefield drama. That is, the odd spot seems to have two tracks working at cross purposes, resulting in the loss of dialogue we were actually intended to hear clearly. Otherwise the sound has also been meticulously prepared.

The special features on the DVD are its most valuable attribute. The first documentary, "Journey to the Past" will be hit or miss among viewers, but the other two are presented well, and quite interesting. The special features begin with an introduction by Ted Turner. Not much more than a vanity piece wherein he gets to relate his interest in the Civil War, there is not much to this introduction. He recounts a host of details about his long love for the Civil War, and mentions his many efforts to be responsible for Civil War films, all the better to legitimize himself in the eyes of the Civil War buffs who are the movies target audience. ***

We next get our two music videos. Both of them, as we would expect, are merely montages of scenes from the film. Mary Fahl's "Going Home" (the song that opens the movie, and a gorgeous song it is) takes the more traditional route, cutting back and forth, from simple scenes of her singing, to scenes from the film. Bob Dylan, on the other hand, gets into things a little more, and his video shows scenes in which he is 'put into' the movie, while also alternating in actual scenes from the film. ***

"Journey to the Past" is given to us largely as a sort of mock-interview with director Ronald F. Maxwell, and if the result of his vision has not caught one's eye, a recounting of his vision itself isn't likely to either. There are some clips of interviews with the actors, and a bit of behind-the-scenes footage, but it is largely Maxwell's personal presentation of what he wants you to think, and there was enough of that just watching the film. ***

This is also the portion of the special features that tries to zero in on the slavery issue as a factor (or not) in the war. Slavery may not have actually been the central issue in the Civil War (although if we understand the movie's ideas, it was not the central issue by virtue of being the central issue), but the movie itself, and especially this particular documentary feature distance slavery from what is happening to such a degree that we begin to wonder if we shouldn't take a look at that man behind the curtain. ***

"The Authenticities of the Film", much like the commentary track, is a wealth of information about the period, and is deeply interesting. This feature is presented by the film's historical advisors, and set and costume designers, and details the myriad ways in which the film spared no effort or expense in making sure the film was as true to the period as possible. Particularly interesting are some of the insights into the preparations of the extras, and the process of total immersion into the time that everyone involved went through. ***

"The Life of Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson" is equally interesting. In this fairly short presentation given to us by a variety of historians, we learn largely the same things we learn in the film, but it is far more interesting. The facts are the same, but here we find a real person who became a legend, and not merely a legend transposed back onto himself. The feature details his time in Mexico, his religious troubles and eventual fervor, and the exploits that made him into the legend that he is. Not the least of which, of course, the fact (coincidental though it may have been) that things began to turn bad for the South after his death. ***

The commentary track on the DVD is, in its own way, one of the best commentary tracks around. We get to hear the director, and the two chief historical advisors not only recount the project itself, but also detail more of the history behind what the film shows us. There seems no end to what this commentary has to offer, and indeed, the running-time went by exponentially faster while listening to the character background, and history offered here. The director gives himself away in several areas, not the least of which is at the very beginning of the track when he says that the movie had to 'speak' to those who were ultra-familiar with the subject. ***

Though you would certainly think that a commentary track approaching four hours in length cannot possibly be worth the entirety of its time (and you don't actually get the entire film's-length worth anyway), you'd be wrong. Somehow, the movie with the commentary is more the movie than the movie. It brings the characters and events to life far more, and pulls you into a far superior state of interest and urgency. Though some details of places, and smaller, personal notes of characters might not be especially interesting, the store of information on the more minor characters (filmwise) makes a viewing with the commentary worthwhile on its own. This becomes especially true when we get beyond the Battle of Fredericksburg. -