'Gods and Generals' presents reality history (Phyllis Schlafly)

townhall.com ^ | March 4, 2003 | Phyllis Schlafly

[condi2008]

IMO if a person is not a history buff they will find large portions of the film boring.
We took 3 girls(!); ages 9, 12, and 13 (!) and they all hung with it, and recommend it to their brothers & friends. They may be admittedly "different" than many 9-13 y/o's, but it tells me that one does not have to be a Jackson fan like me to find it well worthwhile. Personally, I find the battle scenes wearying, but who am I to complain? -war is truly wearying, and infinitely worse. The excellent character portrayals and God-honoring dialogue throughout the film were the things that have most impressed me twice, and I look forward to any excuse to go again.

I can't see myself sitting in a movie theater for almost 4 hrs w/ no smoke/potty break!
One of us adults puffed the heck out of his pipe just before entering, and did not seem to suffer. There is a 12-minute intermission after the Battle of Fredricksburg; maybe you could run out with your ticket stub in hand?

[GOPcapitalist]

But I find it completely ironic how over 140 years after the War of Seccession ( yes I have come to se it was NOT a CIVIL WAR ) that the most patriotic Americans are those living in the SOUTHERN and WESTERN ( not Pacific Coast ) states and that most of the Anti American hating types live in the Union States ( and their reprsentatives in congress reflect that fact )

Yes, and Massachusetts, the "hotbed" of unionism, is the wackiest, most America-hating of them all. As I have noted previously, Bill Clinton technically came from Dixie, but yankeeland elected him. Twice. The only dissenter from that region was Indiana.

[Lee Heggy]

When I try to convey the Southern perspective I use a huge book that I recieved from a friend whose family was very much involved with the major Confederate figures. I've never seen it anywhere and can only assume that it was suppressed at the time of it's printing in 1865. It may be one of only three of four still in existence. Hand bound and typeset. It's titled 'A Southern History of the War' and is by a person named 'Pollard'. It contains maps and diary entries along with newspaper reports and correspondence between the major figures such as Lee and Jackson. It's a beautiful compendium of material that to my knowledge has mostly been lost or destroyed.

[condi2008]

The sense I get from viewers' comments is that the movie tried very hard to present character portraits that show why these men fought and believed that God was on their side, but it just didn't come off properly and sank into caricature.
The thing is, if you've read the historical accounts and well-researched biographies, those portrayals were accurate. If it appears false to us with our modern experiences, it is because of our own perspective.
I heard it said just yesterday, that if we object to their 19th-century views, it is for us as if we were midgets standing on the shoulders of giants. We can see much further than they; but only because of what they have done before us. We cannot fault them for the distance vision they did not have at the time.

[SCDogPapa]

You are correct. That's the mistake people of today make.

You CANNOT look back into the 1800's with todays eyes.

[Basilides]

It is a sad testament to how barren our cultural wasteland truly is that a mediocre movie like Gods and Generals is desperately clung to by those of us starved for anything...anything...other than the multicultural, politically correct crap that is the usual "historical" fare coming out of la la land.

The movie had tedious dialogue, left out important military aspects of the battles and movements, romanticised the actual combat experience 90% of the combatants involved, and...get rid of those overweight re-enactors who show about as much passion and enthusiasm as Sadaam's officer corps, and as much desperation in combat scenes as a commuter running to catch a train.

Sorry...I'm with ya emotionally folks....but let's not take leave of our senses...

[condi2008]

I guess I'm really hoping that this is a positive sign of the pendulum of popular culture beginning to swing back; that there will be ever-more historically accurate & excellent arts & entertainments forthcoming; and that the tastes of Americans will soon expect this moral excellence in their cultural pursuits. I would think that this film would have to be at least moderately successful for it to play a part in such a scenario.

[4CJ]

I took the whole family two weekends ago. I loved the movie, and consider it to be the greatest Christian movie of all time - Lang should win an Oscar for his portrayal of Gen. Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson - he WAS Jackson!

Even my family, who are not into the unCivil War, were mesmerized at times, and never once asked to leave (what a change!) Certainly 4 hours (with a 15 minute intermission) might be too long to some, I thought it was way too short! I'll definitely buy the DVD. Gods and Generals is a phenominal movie.

Plus, the local SCV chapter was in attendance, with men and women in period dress - the movie was more than a movie - it was an event.

[k2blader]

That does it. I better go see this movie. ... But still hoping for an intermission ...

[meandog]

When the federal government financed a 271-page book in 1994 to prescribe "National Standards for United States History," it was a public relations disaster. The U.S. Senate repudiated it by a vote of 99 to 1...

Hm-m-m-m-m, any guesses to who the "1" was?

[7MMmag]

Is Antietam in the 6 hour Gods and Generals DVD? As I understand it, this movie is billed as a "prequel" to the Gettysburg movie---and THAT movie was largely based upon a book entitled "The Killer Angels", which I found to be a very good read...

[Valin]

Today, 55 colleges and universities, including the most prestigious, have no American history requirement and only a fifth of colleges require any course in history.

This is a bit off topic, but tonight at work I had my (so called)Mind blown. We were talking about the upcoming war, one of the folks is a young skull full of mush and so anti-war. I says to him you do fo course know that saddam see's himself as the new Nebuchadnezzar and wants to reinstate the Babylonian empire. Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonian empire he say's? My jaw dropped, left speechless.

[Valin]

"Gods and Generals" is a prequel to the 1993 film "Gettysburg," also written and directed by Maxwell, which was a better film. It was able to focus on a narrow slice of the war, a battle that lasted just three days although its influence cannot be measured. "Gods and Generals" covers the first two years of the war -- it needs a figure like Jackson to hold everything together. Even then, it contains a series of sickly saccharine scenes of a 5-year-old girl forging a friendship with him.

I don't think it was "sickly saccharine" at all. I found it humanized him, made more real(if you know what I mean).

[condi2008]

Even then, it contains a series of sickly saccharine scenes of a 5-year-old girl forging a friendship with him.
I don't think it was "sickly saccharine" at all. I found it humanized him, made more real(if you know what I mean).

Besides that, it really happened that way. General Jackson did indeed forge a friendship with little Jane Corbin at Moss Neck over that last winter (see James I. Robertson's excellent biography, Stonewall Jackson: The Man, The Soldier, The Legend). I did notice that the actress was more like 8 years old (a bunch of permanent teeth ~seen a bunch of them at our house recently). And ok, her acting or at least her accent left something to be desired, but the situation & most of the dialogue* were historically accurate (*He wouldn't have lied & told her that "all the daddies will come home"). Those scenes "made it" for the 9 year-old girl that attended with me, and I'm glad they were included if it leaves her with a positive impression of a 4-hour-long war movie.
I tried to remind myself that in this life, I'll not get the film that I want to see covering Jackson's life ("the movie's never as good as the book", because in your mind the words become alive). I try to overlook the faults of G&G in order to appreciate the beauty of a major film covering this subject with a sincere attempt at realism.

[SevenDaysInMay]

I have read several articles on over the last decade which discussed that the concept of education has eroded badly. The traditional "common body of knowledge" is no longer common, and rarely earned in an American undergratuate degree.

Every year tens of thousands of undergraduate and graduate degrees are nothing but diploma mills' paper, for only a few hundred dolars. 20/20 did a piece reporting that government employees were a major market for purchased degrees, but in any case, little to no old fashioned, midnight oil education was required for "conferred" degrees.

I am old enough to have attended UT in Austin when freshmen/sophomore history, English, math, science, and accounting classes were flunk out courses designed to cull the unfit students. In my experience, government professors were among the first on campus to grade inflate iin protesting the Vietnam War.

In less than one generation, agenda education degraded the American standard bachelor degree in large and small colleges alike. For me, every graduate is suspect in their "common body of knowledge".

Knowledge based critical thinking is no longer held in high esteem in this reality tv/MTV/ABCCBSCNMSNBSNNBC sound byte.com culture. IMHO, this is the underlying reason that we could have elected a psychopath president twice and that Hillary's brand of fscism may yet prevail.

Coffee is on. I have to hire someone this week.

[Valin]

I've got a good friend(Freeper Powderhorn) who when back to finish getting his degree, he told me how worried he was that after 20 years he wouldn't be able to keep up. Needless to say his fears were greatly exagerated.
I was talking to a kid at work yesterday who had never heard of Nebuchadnezzar or the Babylonian empire. Now lord knows I'll never be consudered the brightest bulb on the tree but (right hand to god) I look like Albert (friggin)Einstein compared to most of the people I run across.
So sad many of them live in such a small world and have know idea what a magical place God has given us to live and play in.

[BillyBoy]

>> Yes, and Massachusetts, the "hotbed" of unionism, is the wackiest, most America-hating of them all. As I have noted previously, Bill Clinton technically came from Dixie, but yankeeland elected him. Twice. The only dissenter from that region was Indiana. <<

Acutally, most of New England was full of pacifist liberals who urged to let the south go in peace and kept trying to push for a caese-fire and armitace. New England has never liked wars, going back to 1812. It was the midwestern states that was the hotbed of unionism. Not that that matters to you.

As for Clinton, Indiana was the only "yankee" state not to vote for him if you pretend the rest of the midwest, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas-- don't exist. If you're going to insist that's not "yankeeland" even though many of those states were around during the civil war supported the union (go to their state capitols some time and see who gets all the press in LINCOLN, Neb.) then be consistant for once and stop calling Californians "yankees" (can't get much further SOUTHwest than Califonia) I also see you've conviently forgotten the majority of southern states voted for Clinton (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virgina, Maryland, Tennesee, Georgia--home of the "Zell Miller is God" club of "conservatives"-- Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida) and that little matter about Presidential elections in the 1st half of the 20th century. We've talked at length about the 1916 election results and you've insisted everyone is aware of it, but then you get amnesia yourself.

And I love your excuse about how FDR is not the south's fault because "yankees voted for him to". He got about 55% of the vote in most midwestern states, compared to about 80-90% of the vote in most of the former confederate states. And he didn't even bother to campaign in most of those one-party states. Gee, I wonder where all the opposition to him was? My grandpa NEVER voted for Franklin, did yours?

Finally, speaking of those evil yankees, I'm guess you have no clue where Phyllis Schalfy is from.

[GOPcapitalist]

Acutally, most of New England was full of pacifist liberals who urged to let the south go in peace and kept trying to push for a caese-fire and armitace.

That's not what their elected representatives and government said. The Massachusetts delegation to Congress was arguably the most radical of the northerners. It was the midwestern states that was the hotbed of unionism.

The midwestern states - specifically Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana - were hotbeds of conflicts with the copperhead democrats. Their leader was from Ohio and most of their politicians came from those states, not massachusetts as you would have us believe.

As for Clinton, Indiana was the only "yankee" state not to vote for him if you pretend the rest of the midwest, such as North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas -- don't exist.

Try again. Those are the plains states per USDA designation and just about any reasonable classification of regions within in the United States. Illinois, Indiana, Missouri, Ohio and the sort are midwest.

If you're going to insist that's not "yankeeland" even though many of those states were around during the civil war supported the union

Politically, they were union as were Oregon and California. But go ask somebody from any of those states if they consider themselves yankees. Most likely, they associate that term with the northeast and find them as repulsive as the rest of us.

then be consistant for once and stop calling Californians "yankees" (can't get much further SOUTHwest than Califonia)

Correct me if I am wrong, but did you not just lash out at me for not considering Nebraska "yankeeland" on the grounds that it was part of the union side of the war? Hate to break it to ya, but California was part of that same union side. So was Oregon. In light of those facts it seems you have a choice to make - either all states on the union side are "yankeeland" because of that affiliation, or they are not. You can't have it both ways.

I also see you've conviently forgotten the majority of southern states voted for Clinton (Missouri, Kentucky, West Virgina, Maryland, Tennesee, Georgia--home of the "Zell Miller is God" club of "conservatives"-- Arkansas, Louisiana, and Florida)

Curious little list you got there, considering your earlier rule of thumb seems to have been whether or not they were with the USA or CSA in the war. It should not surprise you then to learn that West Virginia, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri all remained in the union (though some in part by force). Rather than sit by and allow you to play fast and loose with the numbers, I've taken the liberty of locating them and providing them for both 92 and 96:

1992:

CSA States for Bush: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia
CSA States for Clinton: Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Georgia
CSA Electoral votes for Bush: 108
CSA Electoral votes for Clinton: 39

1996:

CSA States for Dole: Texas, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia
CSA States for Clinton: Arkansas, Tennessee, Louisiana, Florida
CSA Electoral votes for Dole: 96
CSA Electoral votes for Clinton: 51

In other words, you are simply wrong. And go ahead and add in the border states if you like. Give Clinton Missouri, Maryland, Kentucky, and West Virginia for a total of 34 electoral votes. He still loses the south 108 to 73 in 1992 and 96 to 85 in 1996.

and that little matter about Presidential elections in the 1st half of the 20th century. We've talked at length about the 1916 election results and you've insisted everyone is aware of it, but then you get amnesia yourself.

History has amnesia about that election because it does not stand out as one of importance like 1896 or 1932 or even 1952 for that matter.

And I love your excuse about how FDR is not the south's fault because "yankees voted for him to".

Like it or not, it's a matter of history. The whole nation voted for the guy and, above all else, he was a yankee himself.

He got about 55% of the vote in most midwestern states, compared to about 80-90% of the vote in most of the former confederate states. And he didn't even bother to campaign in most of those one-party states. Gee, I wonder where all the opposition to him was?

The only congressman to vote against all the new deal spending programs was from Texas.

My grandpa NEVER voted for Franklin, did yours?

He always cursed FDR, so I take it he must not have.

Finally, speaking of those evil yankees, I'm guess you have no clue where Phyllis Schalfy is from.

So one good apple makes up for all the Kennedys, Hillary Clintons, Franklin Roosevelts, John Kerrys, Al Sharptons, Chuck Schumers, Carol Moseley Brauns, Pat Leahys, Robert Toricellis, Sheila Jackson Lees, and Charles Sumners that region has produced?