Gettysburg/Gods and Generals
- Thread starter Myshkin
- Start date
- Status
Fly Caster
Puritan Board Sophomore
Caveats? You might cry when Gen. Jackson dies. I did.
gordo
Puritan Board Freshman
Both decent flicks for sure. I liked Gettysburg better as the whole movie is the battle. Only issues with it is some shotty directing (ie. wierd cuts, etc). But a good movie overall!
G&G is pretty good too, just seems to drag in some places. Focuses maybe a bit too much on Jackson and his longing looks of despair.
G&G is pretty good too, just seems to drag in some places. Focuses maybe a bit too much on Jackson and his longing looks of despair.
fishingpipe
Puritan Board Freshman
Yes. I always get a little clutched in many parts of Gettysburg. Especially just after Pickett's charge when he informs General Lee of the status of his battalion. I also enjoyed the portrayal of General Lewis Armistead in the movie. I enjoyed both movies, but Gettysburg is one of my favorites.
baron
Puritan Board Graduate
The part's of Gettysburg I enjoyed is when Gen. Longstreet tries to talk Gen. Lee out of the attack that he knows will fail. Also when he ask Gen Pickett if he can break the union line. The look on Gen. Longstreet face knowing thousands of his men will die. Also when he is telling his spy (the actor) who wants to take part in the charge.
I'm reading a biorgraphy on Gen. Lee now, just starting the battle at Gettysburg. Hope to read about Jackson, Longstreet, and Grant next.
I'm reading a biorgraphy on Gen. Lee now, just starting the battle at Gettysburg. Hope to read about Jackson, Longstreet, and Grant next.
Frosty
Puritan Board Sophomore
These are absolutely two of my favorite movies. Both are solid, but like others I too give a slight nod to Gettysburg when comparing the two.
Both are pretty accurate in regard to troop movements, and portrayal of characters. Just like in any movie you may find goofs here or there, but nothing glaring.
A few things I appreciated from Gettysburg:
- very clearly vindicated Pickett and Longstreet in regards to Pickett's charge. Both men were skeptical, at best, of the charge.
- Union troops shouting "Fredericksburg!" as Rebel soldiers left the field on the 3rd, payin' em back for the slaughter of Union troops against a heavily fortified Confederate position the previous December.
- Confederate troops backing away in retreat after the charge. Didn't want people back at home reading they turned their backs in retreat from the Yankees.
- loved portrayals of Chamberlain and Stuart
Some consider the movies some good ole Southern propaganda. I either 1) didn't mind very much or 2) didn't notice it enough to draw any conclusions on the matter.
Could go on and on. Are there some minor inaccuracies in them? Sure. Very, very well done overall, though.
---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------
Am very excited to be leaving for Gettysburg tomorrow to camp for the weekend. Next weekend are the re-enactments.
Both are pretty accurate in regard to troop movements, and portrayal of characters. Just like in any movie you may find goofs here or there, but nothing glaring.
A few things I appreciated from Gettysburg:
- very clearly vindicated Pickett and Longstreet in regards to Pickett's charge. Both men were skeptical, at best, of the charge.
- Union troops shouting "Fredericksburg!" as Rebel soldiers left the field on the 3rd, payin' em back for the slaughter of Union troops against a heavily fortified Confederate position the previous December.
- Confederate troops backing away in retreat after the charge. Didn't want people back at home reading they turned their backs in retreat from the Yankees.
- loved portrayals of Chamberlain and Stuart
Some consider the movies some good ole Southern propaganda. I either 1) didn't mind very much or 2) didn't notice it enough to draw any conclusions on the matter.
Could go on and on. Are there some minor inaccuracies in them? Sure. Very, very well done overall, though.
---------- Post added at 10:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------
Am very excited to be leaving for Gettysburg tomorrow to camp for the weekend. Next weekend are the re-enactments.
Scot
Puritan Board Sophomore
I highly recommend listening to these lectures by Dr. Morecraft.
Godly South: Unitarianism and the North - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney: God Spared the South From Unitarianism - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney: The French Revolution Comes to the South - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney and the New South - SermonAudio.com
Godly South: Unitarianism and the North - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney: God Spared the South From Unitarianism - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney: The French Revolution Comes to the South - SermonAudio.com
R.L. Dabney and the New South - SermonAudio.com
My favorite scene from "Gettysburg" is the "Little Round Top." The passion in Jeff Daniel's face when he yelled, "Bayonnet!" IS memorable.
My favorite scene is "God's and General's" is when Stephen Lang's character (Jackson) cries after he learns of the death of the little girl and his aide says, "He's crying for all of them."
sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
My favorite scene is "God's and General's" is when Stephen Lang's character (Jackson) cries after he learns of the death of the little girl and his aide says, "He's crying for all of them."
sent from my most excellent Motorola Atrix.
Kevin
Puritan Board Doctor
I liked them both. Ted Turner is a bit of a Civil War history nerd (and a McCallie boy!) so he "gets it".
I was told by a reenactor that the scene with he troops cheering Lee, was unscripted. It was the first time that the seconds (all reenactors) saw "Lee" in costume & on horseback & they began to spontaneously cheer. Since they were preparing to shoot a scene all of the cameras were ready & the unit director simply told everyone to begin shooting!
I find it a very moving scene.
I was told by a reenactor that the scene with he troops cheering Lee, was unscripted. It was the first time that the seconds (all reenactors) saw "Lee" in costume & on horseback & they began to spontaneously cheer. Since they were preparing to shoot a scene all of the cameras were ready & the unit director simply told everyone to begin shooting!
I find it a very moving scene.
Gettysburg: possibly one of the best Civil War movies ever made. The acting is spectacular, the emotion is there. It's also good that it's portrayed sympathetically for both sides, presenting a balanced view of the human struggle on both sides. Really, there aren't any downsides to this one.
G&G: Very good, but not quite up to par with Gettysburg. Stephen Lang as Jackson is front and center and portrays him accurately as the Christian warrior that he was. The problems though are: a) the fact that it does drag, and it pretty much excludes Hancock and the rise of Lee, both of which are key parts of the novel b) Robert Duvall---I can't believe I'm saying this because, let's face it, Duvall looks like Lee, but comparing Martin Sheen's Lee with Duvall's is hardly a comparison. Duvall is stiff and formal, whereas Sheen is warm and even if he doesn't quite look the part, he convinces you nonetheless---he just portrays Lee really really well and Duvall can't get up to that level. c) imbalance. Unlike Gettysburg it's clear whose side the director is really on and it's the Confederate side. The Union just isn't as well represented---the Chamberlain story feels forced into the film as a concession to the civil rights movement (and really, Jackson's talk with his cook about ending slavery could have sufficed).
I would heartily recommend both films, but (particularly with G&G) I would also recommend reading the books (Gods and Generals and The Killer Angels) which are excellently written and provide all kinds of things that the films simply don't have time to go into.
G&G: Very good, but not quite up to par with Gettysburg. Stephen Lang as Jackson is front and center and portrays him accurately as the Christian warrior that he was. The problems though are: a) the fact that it does drag, and it pretty much excludes Hancock and the rise of Lee, both of which are key parts of the novel b) Robert Duvall---I can't believe I'm saying this because, let's face it, Duvall looks like Lee, but comparing Martin Sheen's Lee with Duvall's is hardly a comparison. Duvall is stiff and formal, whereas Sheen is warm and even if he doesn't quite look the part, he convinces you nonetheless---he just portrays Lee really really well and Duvall can't get up to that level. c) imbalance. Unlike Gettysburg it's clear whose side the director is really on and it's the Confederate side. The Union just isn't as well represented---the Chamberlain story feels forced into the film as a concession to the civil rights movement (and really, Jackson's talk with his cook about ending slavery could have sufficed).
I would heartily recommend both films, but (particularly with G&G) I would also recommend reading the books (Gods and Generals and The Killer Angels) which are excellently written and provide all kinds of things that the films simply don't have time to go into.
fishingpipe
Puritan Board Freshman
I have reenacted off and on for years (mostly with the 21st NC Troops). With all of these 150th anniversary reenactments cutting loose I do not wish to miss many of them, particularly the 150th Gettysburg in 2013. I was at the 140th Manassas in 2001 and there were close to 25,000 reenactors there. I wish I could make it up next month for the 150th Battle of Manassas. I'm sure it will be another large gathering of reenactors.
Thanks guys this is really helpful. I was hesitant to even ask my question for fear of some starting an argument, and I know Civil War issues run deep on the PB. You have answered my question as I hoped (especially Randy and Philip).
One last question: Would watching them in a particular order make much difference to a newbie? I realize Gettysburg is from 1993 and Gods and Generals is from 2003, but my research reveals that the latter is actually considered the prequel by some.
One last question: Would watching them in a particular order make much difference to a newbie? I realize Gettysburg is from 1993 and Gods and Generals is from 2003, but my research reveals that the latter is actually considered the prequel by some.
Well duh---Gods and Generals ends at Chancellorsville with the death of Jackson and Gettysburg begins about a month later in the middle of Lee's invasion of Pennsylvania.
However, I'd recommend watching Gettysburg first---it's the clearer classic and was originally intended (like the novel it was based on) to stand alone.
Well that wasn't very nice.
What I meant was, even though the films portray events in the reverse order of which they were produced, does it make a difference which order they are viewed in since some consider G&G a prequel, while others think it should stand alone.
Thanks for your answer.
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
Very interesting--I used to reenact, also (10th Florida). I thought about getting back into it, but since I've gone toward a more Confessional (and I believe Biblical) view of the Sabbath, I decided not to, since the main battle for reenactments is almost always on Sunday. Thoughts? (Apologies for being a bit 
)
)AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
Only a couple notes that I would make. Please understand that these films were based on a novels by Michael and Jeff Sharra– I am approaching the below with disregard to what they were based on and focusing on the overall historical and artistic value-
“Gods and Generals”
Cons: Tries a little too hard at moments to portray the complex and intricate issues of the war (and worldview in general) in a very "naked" way- there was no digging for it, no critical thinking, just unveiled face, unabashed black-and-white contrast that can be unhelpful. This I think could have been a little more thoughtfully portrayed. The focus on Jackson while certainly deserved was not as best scripted and acted as might have been. At times it felt a bit too "theatrical" ie. speech, battle, speech, battle, speech, etc. Within that focus, I regret terribly that they did so little to highlight his relation with Stuart (which in historical fact, was quite a comical, yet tender one.) One funny exchange involved a time when they bunked together in camp- Stuart came in late from duty and hopped into the bunk alongside the sleeping Jackson. Exhausted, he didn't bother to clean up or undress [think spurs, mud spattered cavalry boots!] and apparently was not a gentle bed-fellow. The next morning, Jackson let him know that he didn't mind bunking with him but wished that he wouldn't "ride him around like a cavalry horse all night.") Instead of disclosing those, they tried to add a more "human" element, removing Jackson from his battlefield persona, by creating apocryphal (as far as I have studied) ones like with the little girl whom he supposedly met during this December 1863 winter encampment. That could have been more easily done by focusing on his relationship to his wife, Anna. We the audience deserved that! There is a scene in which he cried for the aforementioned chimerical young lady who died of scarlet fever. This contrasts sharply with the real Jackson who, when it was reported that a young courier was killed in the line of duty of whom Jackson had grown fond, said almost unsympathetically, “Very commendable, very commendable.” Touching as Jackson's death scene was, the historically accurate one was FAR more touching and indicated Jackson's unswerving faith in Christ. The representation of Stonewall's dying words were inaccurate to a degree that (given the strength his true final utterances) detracted from what could have been a exponentially more powerful climax. Likewise there are a few anachronistic references- things that were actually said, but not at the moments portrayed on film. Regrettably also, they do little to highlight many of the Northern celebrities opposite to the CSA. We do get Joshua Chamberlain, but he doesn't provide a helpful compliment, or at least not as large a compliment as Lee and Jackson. Finally, overall the characters were too wooden.
Pros: Fredricksburg was done pretty well– the treatment of private property by Union troops was as bad as portrayed (contrast that with Lee's policy in his Northern campaigns.) The melee and subsequent slaughter in that battle was just as horrendous as shown. Burnside was truthfully that inept and hated by his own men. Yes, Chancellorsville was that big of a success for the CSA and a simultaneously just as tragic loss for that side of the war.
“Gettysburg”
Cons: Who is that General ordering that ill-fated charge? Where have I seen him before? Why does he look so much like Stonewall Jackson?
The representation of Lee's decision and subsequent disagreement didn't do enough to demonstrate the multifaceted issues that intertwine the proceedings of the battle (especially Pickett's charge.) This particular battle is difficult to capture as a snapshot - some some things oversimplified and can steal from the gravity of the minds involved in that battle. A number of complications and considerations made this series of engagments a tangled web that historians are still unwinding. For those gawking at bizarre Southern mistakes, everything has been suggested (and with merit) from problems as big as insubordination and the possibility that Lee suffered a heart attack the night before he ordered Pickett's charge. The film takes the easy route and lays almost full responsibility on Lee (who did make some big missteps), Ewell and Jeb Stuart. Though there is some debate, the scene in which Lee excoriates Stuart for his tardiness is not found in most trusted history sources (though he probably did deserve the rebuke as he blinded the Army of Northern VA!) Stuart in many ways was not out of line, at any rate, though he probably did not use the best of judgment in this scenario- in enemy territory, thin supply lines, few routes of retreat. It was not so simple as you see here, so keep that in mind. And not unlike “Gods and Generals,” at times “Gettysburg” seemed to leave little to the mind of the viewer, leading their thinking on the issues at hand almost like a primer on the conflict and contrasting perspectives of the war instead of an artistic depiction.
Pros: Pretty nicely done on the whole. Pickett was much like you see- self-assured to the point of arrogance, full of braggadocio. I believe that Sheen is a superior “Lee” above Duval's depiction, bested only by Duval's striking resemblance. The focus on Lee's religious fervor is well depicted. Longstreet, though he's earned some legitimate disrepute, is a faithful soldier. In the end, the posturing they made of Lee and Longstreet (relationship, disagreement in battlefield tactic) is correct and does begin approaching the difficulties of the matters at hand. I would recommend D. S. Freeman's “Lee” on the topic to get a view of the very involved scenario. While I'm not familiar with actual accounts (perhaps because they are not historically factual), the conversation that the British attache has with various Confederate players is helpful (when not oversimplified) and a welcome element- it give insightful commentary on the conflict. [Incidentally, if that British chap is real, I HAVE to know who he is so I can read his accounts of the war!] Look for reference to the Iron Brigade, the Black Hats of the midwest- those were some fierce warriors! They gave far more coverage of the USA troops which is not only helpful but a good balance. The “human” element to the soldiering life depicted in the film is to be commended. Cinematically far superior to “Gods...” and better acted.
The order I would suggest for historical framework is “Gods...” then “Gettysburg.”
“Gods and Generals”
Cons: Tries a little too hard at moments to portray the complex and intricate issues of the war (and worldview in general) in a very "naked" way- there was no digging for it, no critical thinking, just unveiled face, unabashed black-and-white contrast that can be unhelpful. This I think could have been a little more thoughtfully portrayed. The focus on Jackson while certainly deserved was not as best scripted and acted as might have been. At times it felt a bit too "theatrical" ie. speech, battle, speech, battle, speech, etc. Within that focus, I regret terribly that they did so little to highlight his relation with Stuart (which in historical fact, was quite a comical, yet tender one.) One funny exchange involved a time when they bunked together in camp- Stuart came in late from duty and hopped into the bunk alongside the sleeping Jackson. Exhausted, he didn't bother to clean up or undress [think spurs, mud spattered cavalry boots!] and apparently was not a gentle bed-fellow. The next morning, Jackson let him know that he didn't mind bunking with him but wished that he wouldn't "ride him around like a cavalry horse all night.") Instead of disclosing those, they tried to add a more "human" element, removing Jackson from his battlefield persona, by creating apocryphal (as far as I have studied) ones like with the little girl whom he supposedly met during this December 1863 winter encampment. That could have been more easily done by focusing on his relationship to his wife, Anna. We the audience deserved that! There is a scene in which he cried for the aforementioned chimerical young lady who died of scarlet fever. This contrasts sharply with the real Jackson who, when it was reported that a young courier was killed in the line of duty of whom Jackson had grown fond, said almost unsympathetically, “Very commendable, very commendable.” Touching as Jackson's death scene was, the historically accurate one was FAR more touching and indicated Jackson's unswerving faith in Christ. The representation of Stonewall's dying words were inaccurate to a degree that (given the strength his true final utterances) detracted from what could have been a exponentially more powerful climax. Likewise there are a few anachronistic references- things that were actually said, but not at the moments portrayed on film. Regrettably also, they do little to highlight many of the Northern celebrities opposite to the CSA. We do get Joshua Chamberlain, but he doesn't provide a helpful compliment, or at least not as large a compliment as Lee and Jackson. Finally, overall the characters were too wooden.
Pros: Fredricksburg was done pretty well– the treatment of private property by Union troops was as bad as portrayed (contrast that with Lee's policy in his Northern campaigns.) The melee and subsequent slaughter in that battle was just as horrendous as shown. Burnside was truthfully that inept and hated by his own men. Yes, Chancellorsville was that big of a success for the CSA and a simultaneously just as tragic loss for that side of the war.
“Gettysburg”
Cons: Who is that General ordering that ill-fated charge? Where have I seen him before? Why does he look so much like Stonewall Jackson?
The representation of Lee's decision and subsequent disagreement didn't do enough to demonstrate the multifaceted issues that intertwine the proceedings of the battle (especially Pickett's charge.) This particular battle is difficult to capture as a snapshot - some some things oversimplified and can steal from the gravity of the minds involved in that battle. A number of complications and considerations made this series of engagments a tangled web that historians are still unwinding. For those gawking at bizarre Southern mistakes, everything has been suggested (and with merit) from problems as big as insubordination and the possibility that Lee suffered a heart attack the night before he ordered Pickett's charge. The film takes the easy route and lays almost full responsibility on Lee (who did make some big missteps), Ewell and Jeb Stuart. Though there is some debate, the scene in which Lee excoriates Stuart for his tardiness is not found in most trusted history sources (though he probably did deserve the rebuke as he blinded the Army of Northern VA!) Stuart in many ways was not out of line, at any rate, though he probably did not use the best of judgment in this scenario- in enemy territory, thin supply lines, few routes of retreat. It was not so simple as you see here, so keep that in mind. And not unlike “Gods and Generals,” at times “Gettysburg” seemed to leave little to the mind of the viewer, leading their thinking on the issues at hand almost like a primer on the conflict and contrasting perspectives of the war instead of an artistic depiction.Pros: Pretty nicely done on the whole. Pickett was much like you see- self-assured to the point of arrogance, full of braggadocio. I believe that Sheen is a superior “Lee” above Duval's depiction, bested only by Duval's striking resemblance. The focus on Lee's religious fervor is well depicted. Longstreet, though he's earned some legitimate disrepute, is a faithful soldier. In the end, the posturing they made of Lee and Longstreet (relationship, disagreement in battlefield tactic) is correct and does begin approaching the difficulties of the matters at hand. I would recommend D. S. Freeman's “Lee” on the topic to get a view of the very involved scenario. While I'm not familiar with actual accounts (perhaps because they are not historically factual), the conversation that the British attache has with various Confederate players is helpful (when not oversimplified) and a welcome element- it give insightful commentary on the conflict. [Incidentally, if that British chap is real, I HAVE to know who he is so I can read his accounts of the war!] Look for reference to the Iron Brigade, the Black Hats of the midwest- those were some fierce warriors! They gave far more coverage of the USA troops which is not only helpful but a good balance. The “human” element to the soldiering life depicted in the film is to be commended. Cinematically far superior to “Gods...” and better acted.
The order I would suggest for historical framework is “Gods...” then “Gettysburg.”
Last edited:
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
Agree completely on your assessment of Gods and Generals. I was most bothered by the completely anachronistic discussion between Jackson and a slave about whether slavery was right or not (if I remember the scene correctily, it's been a long time since I saw it.) Frankly, I think the film was hijacked by Lost Cause romanticism. I was surprised they did get Jackson's death wrong, since James I. Robertson was the historical advisor, and wrote a definitive biography of Stonewall.
Glory, anyone? It definitely had its historical inaccuracies, too, but I think it did a better job of a) presenting characters as soldiers rather than reenacting extras, and b) delving more deeply into the causes of the war.
Glory, anyone? It definitely had its historical inaccuracies, too, but I think it did a better job of a) presenting characters as soldiers rather than reenacting extras, and b) delving more deeply into the causes of the war.
Christopher
Col. Freemantle was a real personage and in 1864 published in London his analysis of why the Confederacy would win.
He doesn't. The actor portraying Gen. Armistead (who led Pickett's charge) died from cancer before the film premiered. Pickett himself, on the other hand, is played by Stephen Lang, who went on to play Jackson in Generals.
The problems in Gods and Generals that you noted are mostly the fault of the filmmakers. The novel is far superior, both in terms of writing, and in terms of breadth and depth (in particular, the film cut Winfield Scott Hancock entirely except for one scene where he opposes Burnside---it also cuts out the rise of Lee from a series of dead-end positions to commander of the Army of Northern Virginia).
As for Gettysburg, it's hard to say whether The Killer Angels or the film is superior. Both are excellent.
Matt
It isn't, in fact, anachronistic. It's actually fairly true to Jackson's actual opinions on slavery---before the war he defied state law in order to teach slaves to read the Bible, he taught Sunday School for slaves, and even though he was a slaveowner, he believed the institution to be morally wrong, though he did not publicly say so, believing that it would end in God's time.
Col. Freemantle was a real personage and in 1864 published in London his analysis of why the Confederacy would win.
He doesn't. The actor portraying Gen. Armistead (who led Pickett's charge) died from cancer before the film premiered. Pickett himself, on the other hand, is played by Stephen Lang, who went on to play Jackson in Generals.
The problems in Gods and Generals that you noted are mostly the fault of the filmmakers. The novel is far superior, both in terms of writing, and in terms of breadth and depth (in particular, the film cut Winfield Scott Hancock entirely except for one scene where he opposes Burnside---it also cuts out the rise of Lee from a series of dead-end positions to commander of the Army of Northern Virginia).
As for Gettysburg, it's hard to say whether The Killer Angels or the film is superior. Both are excellent.
Matt
It isn't, in fact, anachronistic. It's actually fairly true to Jackson's actual opinions on slavery---before the war he defied state law in order to teach slaves to read the Bible, he taught Sunday School for slaves, and even though he was a slaveowner, he believed the institution to be morally wrong, though he did not publicly say so, believing that it would end in God's time.
AlexanderHenderson1647
Puritan Board Freshman
Ah, thanks. I'll be picking that one up asap.
Yep, sorry, misworded- COMMANDED, not lead. Yes, Armistead LEAD that, of course.
This is correct. He allowed one of the slaves in his home to work and purchase his freedom and purchased one woman at her request and because she had heard of Jackson's character and good treatment of his servants and requested that Jackson purchase her labor. Likewise he took in (on good authority) a young mentally retarded orphan.
Last edited:
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
PreservedKillick
Puritan Board Freshman
LawrenceU
Puritan Board Doctor
You have got to be kidding. I thought Sheen's portrayal of Lee was one of the worst I have ever seen. He acted like someone on laudanum. Of course, maybe he was trying to portray one of the theories the Lee was suffering from a mild stroke at the time. Duvall's Lee was spot on. His mannerisms match almost every contemporary description. BTW, he is a relative of Lee's.Maybe it's just me, but Sheen seemed like he owned the character. Despite the fact that there is little physical resemblance to him, but I felt that Sheen owned the part of Lee---he became Lee. Duvall (much as I think he's a great actor) was simply distracting just because he's Robert Duvall. It wasn't Lee in Gods and Generals it was Robert Duvall playing Lee. Martin Sheen got lost in the character and as a result, the performance is better.
- Status
