Review of Gods and Generals (2003) by Brian H — 28 Aug 2009

First the Good.

As any military history buff knows, there's no such thing as a generic battle, and a good historical battle scene must contain props and sets and landscapes that reflect the actual geography, terrain, and troop movements of the battle that's being replicated. They need to do more then just show one team of soldiers firing at another team on a generic, nondescript, could-be-anywhere battleground.

Gods and Generals delivers this for the battles of 1st Manassas (/Bull Run), Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville. Readers of history books and visitors to battlefields will recognize the artillery line of Manassas, the Sunken Road at Fredericksburg, and Jackson's massive flank attack at Chancellorsville. These alone are enough to recommend a viewing for the Civil War/ History buff in your life.

Now for the Bad and the Ugly.

Gods and Generals simply isn't a good movie, and is a chore to sit through fort he average filmgoer. There are several reasons for this, and why it fails as a movie where Gettysburg (same director and producers) succeeds.

First of all, the subject matter is doesn't lend itself to the simple storytelling we expect from movies. The topic is too big - the first 2 years of the Civil War, highlighting the 3 aforementioned actions. That's a problem because those three fights aren't cinematically satisfying. They're sprawling, and don't fit into "story" type pattern. They're no rising action, climax, falling action and resolution in our conflict ... the conflict we get follows a talk-fight-talk-fight-talk pattern.

Secondly, the purpose of the movie is uncertain. Does it want to be a bio on Stonewall Jackson? Sometimes yes, but it inexplicably leaves him alone for long stretches of time (such as Fredericksburg). Does it want to be a comprehensive history of the first two years of the Civil War in the East? Probably not, since it's missing Jackson's Shenandoah Valley Campaign, Seven Days, Second Manassas, and Antietam. These were all crucial fights, and are all skipped. A "balanced" view of the war from both sides? Hardly, since our perspectives are that of the South's two or three greatest generals, and our Northern heroes are an (as yet) unknown Maine professor who becomes a major (J.L. Chamberlain) and an equally unknown division commander W.S. Hancock.

In the end, I place most of the blame on Jeff Shaara, the author of G&G and of The Last Full Measure. Jeff's the son of Michael Shaara, who was the author of The Killer Angels, the novel on which Gettysburg was based on. Jeff wrote the prequel and sequel to his father's work, essentially dividing the American Civil War into 3 chapters - "Chapter1: Stuff that Happened Before Gettysburg," "Chapter 2: Gettysburg", and "Chapter 3: Stuff that Happened After Gettysburg".

The middle chapter, about a single, decisive, turning point battle lends itself to both a good book and movie. The other two don't.