Just finished watching Gods and Generals and had the exact same reaction. What ruins the movie is that every single *beep* scene not involving a battle has to be a grand Oscar-going-for-the-win-take-all-dramatic-speech. Not one of those scenes was badly delivered - in fact, most of them were quite good - but the sheer amount of them is ridiculous, overwhelming, and ultimately defeats their own purpose, which is to produce an emotional moment. Having an emotional moment followed by another emotional moment by another by another by another desensitizes the audience. Plus, as you just said, people don't really speak like that, at least not all the time.
And, as you said, it's the wonderful cinematography - and, I would add, the battle scenes - that salvage somewhat this movie. I really enjoyed the rout on the Union soldiers near the end; it was a well staged sequence and was not the usual "let's advance under heavy fire, stop, aim and shoot" that comprises most battles of these eras.
The funny and ironic thing is, I think Gettysburg's main flaw is that it feels like a dramatized documentary, having nearly no drama whatsoever, instead presenting as many facts and details of that battle as possible. It's as if the director decided to pour all the dramatic scenes that Gettysburg lacked into this movie. Still it is a far better movie than Gods and Generals.
reply
share
paulhilts
14 years ago
As a participant in both movies, I can tell you the mystery bugged us both during shooting and when we saw some edited pieces and the final cut. The strangest choice by Maxwell is omitting the Armistead/Hancock parting before the war.
In one of those "truth is stranger than fiction" moments, many of the Old Army officers were stationed together in Calif in 1861, and they had a teary farewell party their last night together. Armistead and Hancock were great friends, had dated the same girl (she eventually married Hancock, and was present and played piano for the soiree). The two young officers pledged undying friendship, and swore an oath on the Bible not to fire on each other. References to this event take up nearly 10 minutes of screen time in "Gettysburg", and along with Lee's and Jackson's attitudes and Chamberlain's post as teacher of "Natural and Revealed religion" at Bowdoin, go a long way to explain the title of the 2nd movie.
Somehow, though, the guy who directed G-Burg forgot to film this true tale, and also turned RE Lee's agony of conscience over which country owned his allegiance, into the flattest report ever.
We knew going in that many military matters would be ignored for the sake of the movie, but when actual events are so emotionally powerful, and so revealing of what you claim the story is about--the generals and their gods--you have a *duty* to tell that truth.
To this day, no one I know has received any explanation from Maxwell for his dereliction.
--clamhilts
reply
share
trob226
14 years ago
I always wondered why he strayed from the book "Gods and Generals" myself, especially in ignoring the Armistead/Hancock thread. Big mistake, even if Richard Jordan was no longer around to play Armistead (he'd have been too old anyway).
reply
share