Why Gods and Generals is Neo-Confederate Propaganda" (Part 1) - Atun-Shei Reaction
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ค. 2024
- See the original video by Atun-Shei here - • Why Gods and Generals ...
My other reactions to his videos here:
Was it REALLY the War of Northern Aggression? - • Was it REALLY the War ...
Did the Confederacy have better generals? - • Did the CONFEDERACY Ha...
Was Sherman a War Criminal? - • Was Sherman a WAR CRIM...
Links:
patreon - / vth
merch store - vth-store-3.creator-spring.com/
Instagram - / vloggingthroughhistory
travel gofundme - www.gofundme.com/f/hgg-vth-tr...
Discord - / discord
Twitter - / thehistoryguy25
For business inquiries contact: vloggingthroughhistory@gmail.com
my history/strategy gaming channel - / @thehistoryguy
Special Thanks to the following who are the official sponsors of this channel:
Tier 6 - Christian Graves, Elijah Norrick, Han Pol, John Molden, Levi Stevenson, Ziv, Fernando Alonzo
Tier 5 - Edward Guest, Austin Powell, D-Rock, Grant Nystrom, Drunk Binary, J.E. Sandoval, John Ivester
YT Sponsors: Insane, Scar 22, Griffen, that one guy, Driftiest follower
Tier 4 - Adam Telladira, Anthony DeFedele, Charles Grist, Derek Wohl, Graham Brown, Kelly Moneymaker, Kryštof Kotásek, Odins_Martyr, Samuel Enns, Shoulder Devil, Sándor Nagy, Scott Miller, Scripted Samurai
Tier 3 - Rafal Dubas, Matthew Calderwood, Kyle Hosea, Brandon Grams, Qethsegol, Robin Svensson, Austin White, Chris Curtis, John Molden, Peter Gadja, Raoul Kunz, Typhon, SGTMcAllen, David Storey, Cabo, Sephiroth94, Mikael Elevant, Andreas Christensen, Nate Dogg, Mathew Schrader, Nash Zahm, Jared Mackowski, Logan Cale, Stefan Garza, Zyndel Payne, Bran Flakes, Trunks, Brently Roberson, not me, Leo Strato, James Guyett, Michael Wisebaker, ZJ Johnson, Charles Schwab, WarHistoryBuffz, Wes Wilkins, The Real Larson, Samuel Elliott, J.L.Tillaeo
#CivilWar #History #Reaction
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 72 | คู่เอก "ก้องศึก vs โจอาคิม"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/hT1EOSsRPac/mqdefault.jpg)
Thank you everyone who is commenting in a civil manner, even (or especially) those who disagree with me! That's the point of this. To share our views, perspectives, disagreements, etc. but do so in a way that promotes understanding, rather than division. I have responded to many of you but probably won't keep up with that. I will read every comment, and address some of your points in tomorrow's 2nd part. Thanks again everyone!
So your saying your comment section is a “Civil War”.
I understand your viewpoint but Atun Shei has a point that the filmmaking technique used here are made for the audience to empathize with the southerners and by association their cause. This can lead many people who are unaware mistakenly believe that Confederate were justified in their cuase for seperations. It's a domino effect for people who are ignorant to the truth. I don't believe it was the directors intention. His artistic choices can be mistaken as glorification to many people.
@@roctv100 I agree as a non American, seeing gods and general before I jump into actually learning about the war. The film really comes of now as southern dirbble,In some scenes. But didn't feel that way when I had almost no idea what was what.
I really like your videos, because you always give us an informed perspective on the videos you're reacting to. Joanne from Singapore 😊🇸🇬
A Canadian here who feels very similar to you. I enjoyed Gods & Generals at the time and felt it was a little long but figured that was for accuracy. Lo, a decade later I saw his criticism and took it at face value having thought I had forgotten it and attributed it to not knowing the history well enough at the time, which shows the power people like yourself & Atun-Shei actually have!
As a former lost causer who grew up in the South I resonate with Atun Shei and his take on this movie. It definitely reinforced a lot of lost cause mythology.
However even though I'm a huge Atun Shei fan and I love his takedowns of the Lost Cause myth your criticisms of this video were fair.
Sometimes those of us who have deconstructed harmful ideologies can be extremely biased and knee-jerk against anything that can be perceived as supporting those ideologies.
Do you think that your perspective and how you viewed the film comes from the ‘rose colored glasses’ so to speak of coming from the position of believing in the lost cause mythology? I ask because I don’t come from that background, and my opinion of both the film and Atun Shei nearly identically mirror Chris’ perspective and opinions.
@@McMannis85 I think those of us who come from that background are more highly sensitive to any media that portrays the confederacy sympathetically.
The film does showcase some lost cause mythology especially its selective portrayal of slavery in the south but it's not as bad as Atun Shei makes it out to be.
@@SNBullen0002 that’s interesting. I see it as portraying how Southerners felt at the time. I don’t see it as trying to convince me that that’s how it should be, or that’s how I should feel about it now. I appreciate your response.
My problem with Atun Shei is he’s blatantly hypocrite trash, and I have no respect for him as a result of that.
@@McMannis85 I have to say that as a European (we dont learn much about the civil war) who saw this movie as a child and later on. I have to say that it indeed is a propaganda movie for confederates.
I didnt grew up in american school system so im not biased towards any of it and i know nothing about lost cause.
When i was a child and saw this movie i thought that the confederates were the heroes and nice people based on this movie. The movie pictures every confederate as a heroic great person and not really acknowledging the slavery stuff. Especially the death of the one confederate was like a superhero dies...
When i watched it as an adult (not long ago). I was surprised how much propaganda there is. This movie was made to subconciously manipulate you into thinking they are heroes and genuinely great people. That slavery wasnt the reason for war and that they treated slaves nice and that slaves loved their owners.
It is genuinely terrible propaganda movie for which Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
“Show don’t tell” is one of the first cliches they start drilling into your head in film school, and Atun Shei went to film school. It’s something that teachers will mark you down for significantly.
A number of the things he points to are common techniques that you learn in film school to create specific effects within an audience.
So while it is certainly true that all art is subject & interpretation is up to the beholder in some respects, there are also common motifs that can be used like visual/audio jargon which we can give context to our interpretations & perspective into the artists intention.
I think you're right that AS's criticism is more informed by his being a student of film than as a student of history. His irritation at the "village idiot" scene speaks to that. He knows how much effort goes into shooting a scene, even a very short one, and that everything in a movie is there intentionally. Even quick cutaway reaction shots can take hours of work (days, in some cases), so basically everything in a movie is put there for a reason (things like the plane in "Troy" not withstanding.
He also knows that the movie is actually made in the editing bay, and knows that a movie (especially a historical one) is just as much about what isn't in the film as it is about what is included. That's why the fact that things like the fact Jackson's death scene is historically accurate doesn't really justify its presentation in the film. It's possible to present a very convincing false narrative without ever lying or even misrepresenting the facts. In fact, that makes for pretty good propaganda.
That said, I can also see VTH's point. I don't G&G is really engaged in that sort of project, at least not intentionally. The same principle I mentioned about the "village idiot" scene is true of the scene with sale of a slave child: that scene is in the film for a reason. I think that reason is to remind the viewer that underneath all the noble rhetoric of the Confederates is the dirty, ugly truth of what is actually at stake.
I grew up in a very progressive household, but in a very conservative town, and my grandmother, who lived with us and I was very close to, was definitely a racist and a believer in the Lost Cause (she literally did talk about Jackson in the same breath ad Christ). I can see how they could make G&G in a good-faith attempt to tell an honest story. But I can also be pretty confident my grandmother would love it.
Two things can be true.
ignoring "show don't tell" is normal for war films made before CGI. It's just because it was either impossible or very hard to depict things like battles before the 2000's. It isn't something only this film did, many other films did it as well, including Waterloo. Many of them included scenes where someone states that the battle is lost rather than showing it. Though I'm not sure if, with the level of attention and budget this film received, if it can also be excused.
Atun-Shei has said a few times that he would make this video differently if he were to do it again, it's from an earlier period in his youtube career (and his life) when his channel was more about entertainment and goofing off than serious education. He never expected the video - or his channel in general - to become as big as it did.
In his own words: "This review was intended as a fun way to rip apart a shitty movie, and troll a tiny but vocal group of hate-watching Lost Causers who I used to spar with in the comment sections of my very early Civil War videos. It was not intended as a serious piece of historical scholarship and should not be taken as such."
So he took this movie out of proportion and was mostly wrong?
@@omega0195 No, it's that he was excessively nit-picky and generally used a much more snarky and less respectful tone than he would in his more recent videos (compare this to later episodes of Checkmate Lincolnites), because he made this to rip apart a key piece of media that Lost Causers rally around more than anything else. The broad strokes of his criticisms are still valid and I still agree with them.
Sounds like he's trying to cover the stink of his bullshit to me.
@@sulphuric_glue4468 He made a mountain out of a molehill and knows it.
@@BishopWalters12 Yes. ...That was the joke of the whole thing. He has acknowledged this, but he wasn't wrong. Just over-the-top.
I think my issue with your reaction is that both yourelf and Atun Shei comment on the same thing through radically different lenses... And I think that means that the reactions sometimes miss the point being made in the original video.
When Atun Shei points out the problems with the events shown, it is not so much that those events are lies or wrong (they sometimes are, but it is rare). The issue at play does not always relate to factual truth of individual sequences, but rather that the choices made by Maxwell in terms of what he decided to show in his movie and how he framed it.
When he Atun Shei makes the complaint that the editing and musical choices of the movie bends the movie in a more confederate leaning perspective, it does have implications that transcends the issue of historical accuracy. The thing about editing, music and framing is that, in movies, it overwhelms everything else. In the language of cinema, what factually happens in a scene generally communicates less meaning than the way it is framed.
Lets take a few scenes as exemples. On the one hand, when we see the Virginia Secession Convention, every cinematic tool in Maxwell's toolbox are used to make sure that the audience will have a sympethetic view of the event and its participants. The music is hopeful and conveys joy, the actors are bathed in angelic lighting, the choice to have as little mention of slavery as a key motivator for the delegates ensures that this sympatheric framing is unchallenged and the fact that the one mention of a vote against secession is turned into a cute comedic moment ... All of those were deliberate decisions Maxwell had to take and direct.
You then have the various scenes which include the northern perspective. In these cases, the framing is often radically different. For exemple, Union commanders and politicians are framed differently. Coded visual language is often much more critical. You notice the darker rooms and northern generals and politicians being presented as more aristocratic through props as visual shorthands to depict them as vain or disingenuous ("Priviledged Yankes in their parlors with Whiskey and Cigars"). These are also deliberate framing decisions.
Inevitably, those scenes convey meaning, especially because most of the audience will instinctively contextualise one with the other. Thats the whole point of editing, creating meaning by combining shots or scenes. Ultimately, what Atun Shei condemns, and I think he is largely right, is that Maxwell decided to create a movie that through those decisions, has such a strong southern bias that it basically, through its framing, endorses some of the thesis of the Lost Cause.
The director misleads through cinematography. The tenets of the Lost Cause are not stated, but they are often implied through directorial choices. A different director, with different biases, could have made the movie with almost the same basic plot structure, but with a framing that does not do that. This is why Gods and Generals is bad.
I think your comment is a perfect explanation of Atun-Shei's viewpoint. I have some additional thoughts. At 29:06, Atun-Shei is openly trying to convince his viewership of his own viewpoint. I wouldn't say that pointing out that the film uses the same rhetorical techniques as someone who is blatantly trying to be persuasive is a strong argument for the film's objectiveness. I don't mean to be insulting or overly critical, and also understand that not every point that you make on the fly will hold up to your own logical standards, but it comes off as knee-jerk what-about-ism. Pertaining to Atun-Sheis argument that the film portrays the Union as a malevolent, plundering group of disaffected bureaucrats, I don't know enough about the early portion of the war to say if the film accurately portrays the north during this period. If it doesn't (tying back to the original comment), I think Atun-Shei's point isn't so much that the film lies, or mis portrays any event or character, but that the events and characters that it does choose are cherry picked to villainize the north.
It speaks volume to that Jeff Shaara, the author of Gods and Generals, hates this movie for its pro-confederate stance and "making it 90% about Stonewall" and said in an interview "there's a happy slave, and there's no happy slave in the book"
By your criteria, all films are tools of propaganda to a certain degree.
Has it occurred to you and others that when one decides to create a film focussing on a rarely seen perspective, one focusses on that perspective. Everyone knows about the Union side of things already, I’ve never seen GG to be clear but it seems to me that it very intentionally chose to show the war from the opposite perspective
@@hrmpug1092 Imagine a WW2 movie from the German perspective, with soaring heroic music for the Germans, happy Jews working along side the German Army, and the British, Polish and French portrayed as twats. It's very easy to show a war from the opposite perspective and take it WAY TOO FAR. German films like Downfall and Stalingrad offer the unique other perspective of WWII without needing to paint themselves as saints among men.
Speaking as a swede and history buff and based on my own reading about the american civil war when I saw this movie I thought of 2 things.
1. I didn't get Jackson as a brilliant general at all in this movie. Bull run he just stands there, Fredricksburg he does nothing since they focus on the wall and Chancellorsville is really the only time you see him do anything. So for someone that read about Jackson being this great general, my opinion based on the movie was that he was a overhyped nutjob.
2. I didn't know about the lost cause myth at the time but when I saw the movie, I felt it was very heavily slanted towards the south and uncomfortably so.
Now Gettysburg while also slanted towards the south, I did feel it gave a more neutral view since the northern characters got almost equal screen time. So you never forgot their point of view and neither side come across as evil/good which worked for that movie since it was about the battle.
With this movie, it is really a Stonewall Jackson movie and you more or less see it from his perspective and I think that's ok but all the bad things that happen in this movie are done by the north while the south is shown as good guys and I understand that from Jackson's point of view that is the case but as a viewer, this isn't good.
To avoid the propaganda label which I do think is fair for this movie, you need to show the bad side of the south to balance things out and this movie just gloss over it.
I think a nice example is Downfall(Der Untergang) a movie where you more or less just follow nazis. And there are several scenes where you even get sympathy for Hitler which is kinda of a scary thought but in the next scene you can see Hitler talk about how happy he was having exterminated the jews and you just snap right out of it and you are reminded who these people were again. That to me is how you do a movie like Gods and General. It's ok to have one point of view but you do need to remind your audience who these people were and what they fought for and that is completely lost in this movie
Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective!
I wish I could upvote this harder. Downfall was such a good example, can we just imagine Downfall if it had 0 mention of Anti-Semitism. It would be insulting. And that basically what G&G is doing.
YES YES YES this the same out point that I had when I watched this
To your point about Southern slant, if they finished the series with "Last Full Measure" you would have seen a more Union heavy movie, but because yankees basically boycotted this movie, they will never make the last installment.
@@justinschmelzel8806 Disagree, slavery is mentioned quite often, just not in the way too many want it to be mentioned. There is a very touching part of the movie where Jackson and Big Jim were praying and Big Jim mentions slavery. There are other examples, but too many people ignore the fact that the war wasn't all about slavery. In fact, if they wanted to make Fredricksburg look more realistic, they would show the countless men who deserted the Union army on hearing about Lincoln's upcoming Emancipation Proclamation.
One of your big arguments is “I don’t fall for the Lost Cause here”. I already mentioned, this is caused by your knowledge on the matter. Your knowledge saves you from falling for it, you won’t fall for Flat Earth if you are an astronomer. To see the propaganda side, don’t use your own knowledge, only judge Confederacy on how it’s portrayed in the movie. Because not everyone who will watch it is a history professor, who can tell you where each Civil war general is buried when you wake them up in the middle of a night. And from the movie, Confederacy is a beautiful countryside, where people are united, everyone loves and respects each other, they are fighting against higher odds, and people sacrifice their lives as martyrs in order to save it. Even all the slaves mentioned love the Confederacy, what a paradise it must be!
I don't really see it as Confederate propaganda. It could be from their point of view that they don't see themselves as doing anything wrong. Some people of the time saw slavery as "better than staying in Africa."
You're just upset that it isn't obnoxiously "White man bad" like every modern movie.
@@reddeaddude2187 if you truly believe that, how can you explain that the only slur is said by a union soldier, and that there literally isn’t a single slave that is poorly treated?
They portrayed from their viewpoint. In the eyes of a southerner everything was peachy. They were indeed fighting an invading force against all odds. You looking back on their views from a modern standpoint doesn't change how they viewed the world.
@@Joe_Momma205 Movies aren't only made to instill a sense of the feeling of the time. They can, depending on how they choose to portray that feeling, show how you are supposed to feel about it.
For example, while a killer in a movie kills, he or she may be laughing and having fun, while the music and cinematography shows a darker more sinister look and feel. In that way, you get the point of the character, that he or she enjoys hurting others, but you also get that the movie maker doesn't think that that's a good or that you should feel the same way.
Think of how out of place would it be if while the killer was doing that, the music and the cinematography was cheerful and lighthearted? You would feel, at the very least, uncomfortable or confused.
Saying that movie only shows their perspective also fails because their perspective was not as reasonable as they present it in the movie. There are no moments where you see the reality of it, only the southerners perspective of it all. This says, whether the movie maker intends to or not, that the reality - that it was a brutal and vile political and social movement that was okay with owning and hurting human beings as if they were property - is not as meaningful or relevant as their perspective on the issue.
Why would one choose to show only one perspective and, even worse, one that is further from the reality of the time, unless they wanted to pretend that the reality wasn't so real.
Imagine a similar movie about the Nazis. Would you say that they were simpling showing their perspective if they did the same thing? How about a movie about something you find abhorrent?
The only way someone wouldn't feel disgust about the idea of sympathizing with white supremacists is if you believe that to be a much lesser evil than it actually is or that it's not bad at all.
Sounds like you're saying we should hide a message for fear of people believing in it, and that's wrong. That's like book burning, or like a king removing an enemies tongue. To silence another side no matter how horrible is not right for history.
I have to admit as an avid fan of the "Gettysburg" movie adaptation of Shaara's works, "Gods and Generals" was a bitter disappointment. After watching it a couple times, I couldn't stomach it anymore. It really was a self-indulgent puff movie. It was so frustrating that every time someone opens his mouth, a five-minute speech issues forth. They don't hold ordinary conversations, and even goodbyes aren't simple. The best part of the movie is the battle scenes, but even those are punctuated by frustrating interruptions as characters extol the virtues of smoke and steel to cleanse the land of this or that.
Most of that is blessedly absent in "Gettysburg". I disagree with Atun Shei on some points, but his critique of the movie is largely warranted.
Goodbys are hard tough. At least in my home country. We don't have the smalltalk part in the beginning but endlessly long drawn out goodbyes. I hate it.
Even if the movie was poorly done, it nonetheless shows how the war began and it is a reminder to us that this was not an easy war. Despite having fewer resources than the North, they were determined to defend their cause, making them a formidable force.
@@christiandauz3742 A true fantasy novel. Such a man is still just a man. In reality, one stray bullet and the machine gun becomes just a useless hunk of metal.
Agreed, everytime that Fredericksburg Mother opened her mouth, I prayed for a shell to hit the house. So many of the charaters spoke at each other rather than too each other.
Fact is the director took far to many liberties with the original works of Michael and Jeff Shaara. Historically slavery wasn’t a no 1 primary goal of the Union but it was of the confederacy. All of the Shaara books covering the civil war make mention of this in some way shape or form. But in the specific scenes where it is mentioned (the camp fire conversation between Longstreet and Armisted or when Tom Chaimberland is questioning the confederate prisoner) the movie completely removes what was said in the book and it changes the narrative that was being told. The more I go back and watch those movies the more I feel that a movie isn’t the best medium to play out a book especially when the setting of the book is historical. And it isn’t something that can or should be a general audiences type of film either. Both films try to dumb down and sanitize what was a brutal and graphic event in history and what’s interesting is that when movies have descended into making themselves accurate to the brutality of war they almost make themselves unavailable or unwatchable from a ratings perspective.
As a Brit (you asked for non-US perspectives) I think AS is right from the directorial point of view. Watching the movie I do believe G&G is painting the confederacy in its best possible light (in particularly in regards slavery), while showing The North in darker light. I wouldn't have a problem with this at all if both sides were filmed in a "warts and all" style, but it feels like one presentation is deified (the South) and one is warts and all (the North). Whereas I do agree with VLH that most of what is depicted is based on fact. So I think, you're right on the micro level, but I think especially in terms of cinematic analysis, AS' macro view is correct.
As a fellow Brit, you express my feelings well.
Gettysburg spends equal time on two sides. G&G is told largely form the Confederate persepective.
I'm from Norway and I find this to be a good summation of my impression too. Leaving out the darker side of the southern cause is suspicious, especially since the core cause *was* the preservation of slavery.
@@TheTdroid yes but not in the eyes of the characters. The average soldiers and many generals did not see themselves fighting for slavery
So that is why the movie makes sense...that these views of "deifying" makes sense..because the soldiers saw their generals as gods. And the northern soldiers saw their generals in a more cynical way
The whole "UNRELIABLE NARRATOR " Thing
SNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKE!
So I think the disagreement here is a matter of paradigms being different. Vlogging is coming at this entirely from a "historian" perspective. Atun is coming at this from a "filmmaking" perspective.
From a historical standpoint the events depicted are reasonably accurate and reflective of the sentiment in the South at the time.
However, as a film/story being told, the director has the option of how to present each of those moments. The director of the film appears to make every choice to present the members of the Confederacy in the best possible light.
Storys about the past should be accurate when possible. But those stories are told in the present with the value of hindsight and the lessons learned since then. While I think it is possible to fairly present the sentiments of the time, being unwilling to offer any judgements about those admittedly hypocrital sentiments can be viewed as condoning if not outright celebrating them.
that's pretty stupid. That's saying it's Confederate propaganda for not being Union propaganda.
@@bierwolf8360 That's not at all what he's saying.
@@Zarastro54 it kinda is though. "While I think it is possible to fairly present the sentiment of the tine, being unwilling to offer any judgememt... can be viewed as condoning if not outright celebrating them" is basically "even if what they say is objectively correct, if they don't push narrative one way, they're pushing it the other". How isn't this obvious? If the roles were reveresed, no one would call it propagandistic. It's frankly silly
@@bierwolf8360 Union propaganda would be only showing the anti-slavery elements of the army. Fully exhibiting the sentiments of the South, not just the most palatable ones as this film does, is not propaganda.
@@bierwolf8360 that's not at all what I am saying, and if that is your take away it says more about your point of view than it does mine... I am trying to demonstrate why I believe there is a disconnect between Vlogging and Atun... As for the film itself, I have not watched it in full. That said I could understand from the clips presented how someone could view the film as pro-Confederacy. The director did seem to err on presenting the southern cause and characters in their best possible light. That said, it is a film and different people are going to see different things in it
Putting lost cause thing aside, and focusing on cinematography, he has a point. G&G is a bad movie with good battle scenes and an excellent intro.
And I wouldn't argue that point.
Ehhhh good battle scenes? Compared to what, North and South? Manassas was dull with some laughable CGI explosions and Fredericksburg was legitimately boring with more bad CGI. Chancellorsville was fine but did we need “General Raleigh Colston’s Division” text on the screen? Also, the majority of the Union soldiers in those scenes are in their 50’s and 60’s and are running with a “feet don’t fail me now” vibe as opposed to guys that were literally running for their lives. I realize they’re all reenactors, but at least get younger guys for the close up shots. The same director created far better and more exciting battle scenes for Gettysburg. It’s baffling why Gods and Generals is so cheesy and dull.
sounds like Saving Private Ryan tbh. you have the intro... and the rest overall is same ol... with lots of dumb stuff, like random mg, lone tiger drives into town and the infantry shows up just as it is destroyed...
I loved the movie, I could turn it on take a nap and wake up to gunfire 🤣
Is the gross prayer with between Jackson and Jim a Lost Cause thing? If so, then cool. There is no reason or justification for excluding G&G embrace of a false, childish depiction of how that society operated. Even if morality and justice are not invoked, the Lost Cause stuff is still silly and childish - just not reflective of how real world powerful people and organizations operate. Then, yeah, still making excuses for chattel slavery is a bad thing. A meaningful % of the men being glorified in G&G had, were, and were committing treason so they could run an economy built on making other humans property. Benefitting from a such system. Inventing an ideology that insisted that the people who were property were also still OK to rape. And it was OK to take that kid (who looks like their father) and make a better profit because of the lighter complexion of that kid at the auction where you sell your kid. Great People. We should all look up them.
As someone not from Scotland or England: as many things that Braveheart got wrong, Scotland WAS the good guys.
The way I see it Edward Longshanks was right to solve the instability of Scotland; He just went mad with power. Him being extremely Anti-Semitic even for the time is no help to his case.
I think that Atun Shei, who is trained in film making, was looking at the movie from the perspective of a film maker, ie from the perspective of someone who understands the mechanics of filmmaking. That is what informs his views.
Gods and Generals gives us a great look at what General Hood would have looked like had he lived to command in the Spanish-American War.
Bahahahaha
@@VloggingThroughHistory good day Chris , can you react to " Jeremy Clarkson - the greatest raid of all time "
Please 🙏
@@CM-1723 good call, it has it all.
@@ClannCholmain how can we get him to see this request and see its really good ?😂
@@CM-1723 I came from a position I had never even heard about the raid.
Clarkson was absolutely the right man to narrate, he’s so dramatic and so was the raid, a good fit.
Not being a huge civil war buff and being a filmmaker myself, I must admit I do see some pretty weird stuff with gods and generals; it did seem to me that there was a substantive lack of what I would expect from a balanced film. We didn’t see the actual horror of what they were fighting for, at all. If I didn’t know better, I’d come away from this thinking that the south really just did want to fight over states rights. Like it isn’t about inaccuracy straight up insofar as I can tell, but a rather selective telling. Also the only black characters in the film I noticed being pro confederate was pretty ridiculous (tho I haven’t seen the movie in years since I watched it with my father, so I could be mistaken).
Anyway love what you do and the channel! The Vicksburg stuff you put out is incredible
It’s missing the forest for the trees.
You can pick apart the movie fact by fact and claim the overall story was true, but it’s not the full picture. What is the overall story, and which selected facts did they choose to portray that story?
This is what makes some propaganda particularly effective, the creator is careful to craft a story that cannot be easily disproved, but supports a misguided aim.
@@Kilaena I agree entirely; as historically minded individuals, we have to do our best to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Even if this is “true”, it’s nowhere near the whole truth
bias in filmmaking comes from what you don't say just as much as it comes from what you do say
its history, not balance my guy...
Pro northern cause movies are unbalanced and mostly fictional
I think the best measure of whether a film is propaganda in a particular direction or not is to ask yourself: if I showed this movie to a group of pre-teens who know nothing about the historical context, what message would they come away with?
Honestly love this take
Perhaps part of Atun-Shei's conclusions are the result of showing the Confederate point of view repeatedly and in detail and the lack of opinions, varied though they were, coming out of the North. But one of the things that offended me most was the pro south view of the slaves. One scene were slaves are plotting escape to union lines may have helped balance the film. big omission. This film does play to an audience prone to the Lost Cause myth.
Yeah you can kind of handwave away the positive slant towards Lee and Jackson but the way the movie treats slavery is troubling to say the least
@@unc54 Yes, bias not includes what you say and how you say it, but also what you don't say.
@@davidwood8730 Yeah I think that's what VTH isn't really considering.
@Paul Thomas You make some good points. With little editing, it could have been much better. Just showing some of the slaves' reactions after their encounter with Jacksom would have helped. Behavior in front of their masters was not the same as when the master was not around. Also, the "freed slave" character seemed not only not credible but a gratuitous and pointless addition. We didn't need to see all the horrors of slavery, but if slaves get lines and screen time, we should see them portrayed accurately.
Except there were Slaves that did care about their masters and worried about their well being. Not many mind you, but they existed, and that’s what the film is depicting
I am a Mexican and I saw Gods and Generals in my early teens. I am finding myself in between the two arguments here. I do believe that Atun Shei overreacted in some places, however I am finding myself agreeing some of Atun Sheis points that it can lead to thinking that the southern cause was just.
Being not of the US and not having an education on the history of slavery or the civil war, I have a better one now but not when seeing the movie, I was partially inducted into the Lost Cause myth. The only reason I didn't fall completely into it during that time is because I was told of the CSAs plans of southern expansion (being a Mexican I was not fond of the idea of a second American war) and it was history of a place and time that had no affect on my life so I didn't really care.
Now that I have educated myself I have purged my thoughts of those Lost Cause things but I can't help but feel quite disturbed in any scene with a CSA soldier/politician/etc. Knowing the reality of slavery and that I almost fell into the myth crowd, I am finding myself on Atun Sheis side on the topic.
VTH has a point though, I now see that ,similar to Atun Shei, I had a bias towards it and just because it shows CSA as main characters or protagonists it isn't immediately propaganda. It's not The Birth of a Nation after all.
Sorry if this seems a bit rambly.
I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.
@@VloggingThroughHistory you’re legit my favourite reaction channel, you dont argue over disagreements but value them and its such a nice thing to see
The southern cause was just to those fighting for it. My ancestors were afraid of the Union army burning their homes to the ground (which they did). Not everything in the Civil War was romantic, horrible things, even evil things, were done all around. Desperation led to people doing things that are unimaginable. War is hell, and such situations have a lot of nuance. I wish we could stop painting people who were fighting for their homes as evil. It is so disrespectful. They suffered greatly for someone else's crimes. We can absolutely condemn slavery while still recognizing the humanity and suffering of the southern people both during the war, and during Reconstruction. Sympathy for the losing side is something we should consider more.
@@enderoctanus I can understand sympathizing with the Confederate rankers, to an extent. However, the soldier's private reasons for fighting doesn't alter national causes. Although US and UK soldiers were no doubt privately fighting for their homes, it doesn't change the fact that the war in Iraq was unjustified. Nor do the Wehrmacht soldier's private reasons for fighting change the cause of Nazi Germany.
I think part of the reason the CSA's argument would resonate with people today is that if you replaced slavery as the reason with something else, like unjust taxation or burdensome agricultural regulations, then most of their arguments would still hold up. Most of their speeches/writing do not mention slavery because it's already known that slavery was the central issue, but it would be easy to envision a similar speech made related to our own grievances against a state/nation. Most of their arguments could be valid even if what they were arguing for was not.
To put it more simply: They aren't vilified for wanting sovereignty, they are vilified for what they wanted sovereignty for.
I'm here for the comments section war.
Oh, it's coming.
Some men, just want to watch the world burn
So… how were the wars?
@@averongodoffire8098 Yeah... Where???
The problem with this video, is that VTH is focused so much on arguing the history of Gods and Generals that he isn’t even trying to understand Atun-Shei’s point-almost to the point of being deliberately dismissive.
Dismissing AS’s argument with “well that’s how it happened in history” is irrelevant, because AS isn’t commenting on how historically accurate the scene is. AS is pointing out the propaganda because people today in 2022 (or 2021 when this response was made) still subscribe to the Lost Cause myth.
Agreed.
It's definitely an issue of VTH thinking that AS is criticizing the history rather than the way the film tells the history.
@@sleepykitty1985 Exactly. VTH gives this film way too much credit. It's so obviously pro-Confederate it makes me cringe watching it.
Seems like a lost causer
Personally after the fact, he apologized for how inflammatory he was at times calling it propaganda, he never thought the video would blow up that much
Being biased against the confederacy is a good thing, and I wish atun-shei had taken the angle of explaining why his bias was morally defensible and Ron maxwell’s was not, rather than claiming to be impartial when he clearly isn’t
Agreed. Although i think he was meaning to say he was trying to look at this objectively but it came out wrong.
how is being biased ever a good thing? it's basically saying ''I want to frame it this way'' or ''this is the only perspective that will ever matter'' everyone has biases and people who want to talk about anything have to admit they have some bias and attempt to remain objective and impartial, saying your biased and that's a good thing is pretty bad.
@@Alfonso88279 I guess “bias” was a poor word choice. Let’s say “point of view” or “way of framing”. The objective historical record is quite clear on the confederacy’s evils. So I believe viewing the confederacy as evil and portraying it as such is good
That's the problem with delusion, no matter how much you point it out, in his mind he is still unbiased and objective. That type of person shouldn't be taken seriously.
While being biased against the Confederacy and what it stood for is great, that dude's a straight up peasant. He's the exact opposite of unbiased.
Please mr Vlogging Through History, don't let this disagreement that you have with atun shei's point of view prevent you from reacting to the rest of his content. He has some amazing films about very obscure topics, like the one about king phillip's war or the last one about the puritans and the impact they had on America
Oh, like i said, the other videos of his I've done, I agree with most of what he says. Just not this one.
@@VloggingThroughHistory VTH how are you , got back from my aviation training , i am so glad your are still making vids , i was trying to watch videos but was busy , but i am back and i will be regular viewer .
It's sad today that if you dont agree with someone means essentially blocking them and never talking to them again I almost feel sorry that you even have to ask this question it really shows how messed up our current culture is when it comes to talking to one another when someone completely cuts someone out of their life simply because they dont agree(not talking about VTH hes a cool dude talking about people in the US in general)
I don't know why this guy has such a hate for Atun-Shei. I mean his own biases show through in every video he does but he hates seeing Aten-Shei not beating around the bush and calling the lost cause out on it's b.s.
Heck I watched this guy try to claim Tennessee didn't mention slavery in their secession letters while ignoring the fact that Tennessee's letter of secession doesn't even mention why they are seceding, just that they are. He should also be fully aware of the Governor's speech on secession and that in it he clearly points to the issue of slavery being the cause.
Yes, this guy has biases that show through in his videos just like the rest of us.
@@nbafanboy8146 hate maybe a strong word but the man has clearly made it obvious he dislikes the guy and his content.
Ohio native here, not only have I seen these Lost Cause talking points used (some of them, the less batshit ones), I was taught them in middle school. In the middle of a very "progressive" city. These lies are insidious because they were disseminated broadly and near totally in the regions they could find root, so many teachers who grew up in the south and moved elsewhere didn't even know that they grew up in one of the largest disinformation campaigns in history.
Respectful discussion:
I grew up in Virginia and I chose to believe in the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy." Spoiler alert: I don't follow that anymore. For years, I held Lincoln to a lower level believing that he "invaded his own country." I idolized Jackson and learned about his time as an artillery officer, who later taught Physics at VMI. I understood that he may have been a good leader on the battlefield (when he wasn't lost on the peninsula) but he was an awful teacher. The one scene that comes to mind in Gods and Generals is when he mentions that he must repeat his lesson tomorrow "word for word." That's how he taught, because he wasn't able to change the words that he memorized for his lesson plans. I forget the reference material I found that in, but I hope I can find it again some day. As an impressionable high school kid when this movie came out, I did feel a lot of pride for the south. "I love the Union, but I love Virginia more," resonated with me. Lee choosing to turn down the leadership of the Union Army to defend his own home, resonated with me.
What changed my mind was changing my perspective and questioning everything. Reading documents that proved the South were fighting for State's rights... State's rights to own slaves. Reading my ancestor's diary of his time in Vicksburg serving under Grant. (Bias: he's MY ancestor). Reading other sources that argued both sides. Drawing my own conclusion after doing my own research. Serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American military was there for a reason, I was there because it was my turn to go. Having that experience, when a Union or Confederate soldier says he's not fighting for whichever government's cause but for something else, I felt like that captured what my soldiers and I were feeling. We get upset and offended when people switch sides on a debate, but often, when you do your own research and come up with your own conclusions that might contradict your previous understanding you grow as a person.
How can you "invade your own country"?
@@andrewc2491 Yes, precisely, that's the lunacy of Lost Cause nonsense. And he said he no longer prescribes to it.
I think Shei’s argument about telegraphing emotion was weak, as you say. But, I do think he has at least a respectable case that a measure of preferential treatment appears to be given to the Confederacy in terms of conspicuously and selectively showing their best side alongside the Union’s worst side suspiciously too often. One could say, accurately, that some of that boils down to the Confederacy’s objectively better performance in the battlefield, as you mention. But that can only explain away part of it, I think. There’s a bit of a disappointing imbalance that remains even if we concede that. Yes, mostly everything portrayed was factual… but the argument wasn’t that the movie fabricated these things. The argument, and a good one I think, is that in portraying each side, the specific and limited sets of facts chosen from all of the facts available seems a bit… lop-sided. In the end though, I think Shei makes a good case in pointing out the astonishing degree to which every bit of face-value ugliness of slavery is skillfully filtered out of the portrayal of the South, while the only bit of grassroots racial ugliness in the film is reserved for the Union. That alone is a pretty strong indictment of the film, in my view. Calling it “propaganda” is hyperbole. But the film does seem to give an undeniable measure of preferential treatment in its portrayal of the South. And not by lying outright, not by fabricating information… but more subtly…. lying by way of omission.
Very well said. It’s as much about what’s deliberately omitted as it is about what’s deliberately depicted. Couldn’t agree more.
I would like to argue that this type of omission is also a very effective propaganda tool. Russia accuses Ukraine of becoming more right-wing nationalist, omitting the seizure of Crimea and pro-Russian seccessionists in border egions. China deflects anger over its crackdown in Hong Kong by highlighting how riotous activists were, omitting that those activists protested extra-judicial abductions, anti-democratic laws and banning of Tiananmen Square Protest vigils. The most insidious form of propaganda is the type that is true, because it is not meant to inform you, but manipulate you.
This is spot on. The problem with this movie is not that it's fabricating facts. However, the way facts are picked and presented given a very strange impression. And TBH by this way of omitting the pieces that do not fit and highlighting any points, no matter how small that fit into a narrative you can easily create a picture that is only consisting of facts and actual events - and completely false in the same time.
Excellent comment.
Showing the Confederacy at their best and the Union at their worst is completely reasonable in a movie with Confederate protagonists.
Acknowledging bias is the most important thing when talking about political topics and unfortunately most people never do.
I think most people would acknowledge their bias, but also say that the bias is infallible. I feel like that's more the problem. No one ever thinks the opposing side actually has anything useful to bring to the table. Political discourse nowadays is just a bunch of fights that never go anywhere instead of discussions.
Yeah, there's a reason VTH blew up so fast while Atun-Shei waddles in mediocrity. Being humble about information makes it more palatable.
@@Phil-ni3ol Nah, look at the analytics and growth rate. The algorithm likes VTH.
@@m.j.e.5245 Well, the algorithm favours VTH quite a lot compared to Atun-Shei because VTH just puts out videos more frequently. While Atun-Shei makes mostly short films that require a ton of time, and come out infrequently, VTH has a lot of "easy" content such as reaction videos like this one. If you think about it, he's also kinda piggybacking off of channels whose content he reacts to. Channels with similar content usually share subscribers, and for this reason reacting to a bigger channel's content with actual added value is a good way to grow.
I think the issue is that people like me grew up hearing that the concept of being biased is a measure of unfairness and cheapness and lacking any sort of merit.
I’m still trying to get out of the black and white stint of the word to this day.
The biggest problem with G&G was that it simply tried to cover too much ground with one movie. Gettysburg was a 4 hour movie covering 3 days of battle, and they still had to leave a lot of key things out. This film tried to cover 2 years and several major battle in one movie, and the results were inevitable failure. It made the biggest early battles of the war feel like minor skirmishes. That and the fact that they didn't have anywhere near the amount of re-enactors for this film as they did with Gettysburg. As such, there simply were not enough extras to give the battles a proper sense of scale.
I saw both Gods and Generals and Gettysburg as a history buff when they both first came out. From the get go I thought even Gettysburg had some propaganda in it from the get go. In the movie theater as a junior high student, I saw Tom Berenger as Longstreet say "We should of freed the slaves and then gone to war." WHAT!? It drove me nuts then and does now too. That alone gave me the what I needed to know about where the filmmakers were coming from with a lost cause type mentality.
I feel that both of these movies take there time giving you the confederacies point of view and try to show you there reasons. Which I completely don't mind seeing that. The problem I feel lies in that they never show you that slavery was indeed the driving force of it. The northern counterpoints only give you short little "to free the slaves" for any northern reasons, that's it. Huge speeches of confederate leaders inspiring men for there rights. Never anything complex of thought provoking for the north. I feel that for it not to be confederate propaganda, the filmmakers would need to show at least something of complex thought from the Northern or southern side. Show the men "fighting for there rights" That's fine but to exclude the men driving this war to keep slavery as part of the institution is to show only one side and exclude the reality of it. I 100% saw God's and Generals as irresponsible film-making. They chose not to include the main reason for the war. I mean show one confederate whipping or hanging a slave, show one lawmaker trying to preserve slavery, show one Southerner not as a "freedom fighter." Yeah I really do see this movie as propaganda. But I do respect your points of view, these movies though drive me nuts. I understand that these speeches were made, but they are choosing only to show these southern speeches never a northern one.
I see your point that these speeches and letters happened. The problem is they chose only the ones that fit there narrative. They show northerners doing wrong which is fine but they chose never to show the confederacy doing wrong. That's 100% propaganda.
27:31 I think the big criticism of G&G in this regard is that it never even touches on the fact that the south was also fighting for slavery, but almost seems to go out of its way to highlight every other cause the south fought for, despite slavery being the biggest issue for them.
It hardly touches on it probably slavery, being the weighty and sensitive topic it is, would take away from the focus of the film which was the romanticism of the emerging “Gods & Generals” of the CSA. To me, the film seems to portray the CSA as the CSA saw themselves. Whether that is propaganda or just an artistic choice is irrelevant. I think the issue with G&G is it has the pedantic lull of a military documentary simply done through dialogue instead of a narrator, with the pitch it’s a film for entertainment and not documental. I think it’s confusing and expectations are either is this a factual film or an artistic interpretation. The issue of it being pro Neo-Confederate propaganda is irrelevant because, like they mentioned, it’s all a perspective. Many a medium is slanted for viewers to see one side and agree with it, but since G&G has this strong flavor of “documentary” in it, the outrage appears to come from that lack of objectivity. In the end, to me, it was more meant for entertainment than documental, but I see where that line is blurred.
@@Nick40ghs The film still fails to portray how the Confederate saw themselves. Not once did they call themselves the superior race or that their wealth depended on keeping "cattle granted by God." Mentioning slavery IS NOT a Northern perspective. It is a Southern one as that is their main reason for secession. The film can depict it without making the main cast abhorred by it... because they weren't. The film ignores it entirely because there is an obvious agenda.
While emphasizing slavery may detach the audience from their perspective, if done intelligently, it can serve to juxtapose a sympathetic depiction with what we now agree to be a horrific institution. It would serve the audience far better by making them question if they would have supported such horrible acts if they were in the shoes of the Confederates. There are plenty of otherwise villain characters, or anti-heroes people relate to despite not agreeing with their ideology. The inclusion of slavery if done well would not stop the audience from relating to the perspective of the Confederacy. But nah, lets just depict the rebels as the good guya.
Barely any rebels are good guys anyway.
Isn't this what the Lost Cause is mostly about anyway?
@@dr.aisaitl7439 yeah, pretty much. People who buy into the Lost Cause myth always say the south fought for "states rights", but if you ask them what rights specifically, they don't have an answer. Then they generally pivot to taxes, it was about taxes, the north had taxes too hight, neverminding the fact that the south was getting their way on taxes in the decades leading up to the war (southern democrats in congress were successful in lowering the tariff rate twice, in 1845 and 1857). Generally anything to avoid having to admit that their great-great-grandpappy fought for slavery
i'm sure people will have only the most civil and calm discussions about this.
Yeah it's gonna be very civil
War
Would love to see VTH and Atun-Shei do a cross over video at some point. I watch and enjoy both channels quite a bit.
I'd love the banter they would throw at each other.
@@DaLatinKnight banter😂?
The movie does seem to want to make the audience sympathize with the Confederacy. That's what Atun-Shei was trying to point out. The actors' performances can demonstrate to the audience how the characters in a movie are feeling and their dialogue can tell us what they are thinking, but that doesn't mean we, the audience, have to share in their emotion. Why would a film maker choose to use techniques that are used to make the audience feel what the confederacy feels without giving proper context to what they are fighting for? Who wants to be tricked into rooting for the pro-slavery side of the Civil War? If you wanted the audience to sympathize with the Confederacy, how would you do that as a film maker? The obvious answer is to show the Confederacy as an underdog like Rocky set up behind triumphant music and lighting that is flattering.
Basically, regardless for historical accuracy in the retelling of certain events, the artistic choices especially when it comes to music choice is how the director inserts a more pro-confederate message. You can have different opinions about how the movie makes YOU feel. But if you find that a movie doesn't go far enough to illustrate that the Confederacy's cause was objectively wrong, regardless of how THEY (the dead people from 100 years ago) saw it, it begs the question, "Why?"
I’m still in the broadest sense in agreement with AS (mostly coming from film making choices -especially music cues), but I appreciate you filling in for a few of my own blind spots here.
I tend to agree because, for example, if you remove the triumphant score from the scene of Robert E Lee accepting the commission in the Confederate Army, but leave the applause and clapping it still portrays the feelings of the politicians in the room at that time. The addition of the music by the filmmaker seemingly attempts to make the viewer feel that this should elicit positive emotions from this scene, as if something triumphant just occurred. I know he's arguing that in a sense the music underscores how the characters felt in that moment, but that feeling is captured by their response and could be felt the same without the triumphant music or even with an unsettling/ominous music score, so in that way I feel like the filmmaker is trying to elicit positive emotion from this scene and others like it. Putting that positive music, in my opinion, more represents what the filmmaker is trying to elicit more so than portraying what the characters are feeling.
In my view, that scene and other scenes of triumphant Confederate moments is unsettling because we are witnessing some of the darkest moments of this nations history where Americans were killing Americans to secede from the Union to preserve the institution of slavery.
@@13yankeesownyou
Absolutely right.
@@13yankeesownyou
Exactly.
It’s always been a trick for a filmmaker to use to heighten a particular emotion, hence the derogatory phrase “telling me what to feel”. For the alternative to be true it has to be diegetic, it just doesn’t make sense from a filmmaking perspective and muddles the intent. I was thinking whilst watching “would I mind if I this was Nazi’s” whilst triumphant music was playing to glorious running infantry men?
And the answer was obvious.
You have to square that with other elements of the film also, and when that’s done...it doesn’t look like an innocent choice.
@@13yankeesownyou I believe your reasoning is somewhat contradictory. I don't believe you can say that the emotions could be conveyed without the music while at the same time saying it was unnecessary to include that score.
The visuals (standing ovation) give you a sense that they are in agreement and have pride in Lee. The music, however, takes you inside their mind. The old idea that "every villain thinks they are the hero" is demonstrated here. They hear that music in their heads. Not literally, but if music equates to emotion and that specific emotion is what is in their heads, then the best way to convey that to the audience is through music. A more ominous score would not convey what they felt, because it would imply that they felt like the villains.
If the film is guilty of anything, it's giving the audience too much credit. He probably didn't think people like Atun-Shei needed to be reminded who the bad guys were. He probably thought people would realize that he was trying to convey how the confederates felt without endorsing their side. This is why so many people can watch/enjoy it and still conclude that the CAS were the bad guys.
And yes, if you were making a film about Nazi Germany and wanted to accurately portray their emotions so people could get a better understanding of how a nation could act that way, then it would be necessary to score it that way.
@Eric Fisher I think the part where your viewpoints differ is in the usage of music in film. The above commenter seems to believe that music is mostly used for invoking a given feeling in the audience, while you seem to argue for music portraying and supporting the emotions of the people in the scene.
While I think these are two equally valid viewpoints, and that ways of experiencing film depend on the person viewing it, I personally subscribe to the previous. Music in film is an outward force. It isn't something like visuals, which are inherently unbiased and up to interpretation, but an effect that has the sole purpose of altering the viewer's feelings and mood. People usually don't analyse music objectively, but feel it. Many don't even notice it in the moment. Think of a horror movie with a subtle, dark theme that unsettles you without being overly present, or the victorious theme of a superhero movie.
Music is always used to alter the viewer's state of mind or to show the theme of the events. While it might be connected with the characters' feelings, that purpose is usually achieved by weaving it in with the film's world via the characters listening to it, or just moving/dancing to the beat. For an example such as this, I offer Baby Driver.
Of course, even in instances like this, the music still has an effect on the emotions of the viewer.
This is the reason why Atun-Shei and many in the comments argue that scoring the rousing speech of an unjust and evil cause isn't tasteful, rather maybe even malicious.
This film should have just been about Stonewall Jackson. Call it “Stonewall” and let Stephen Lang do his thing. I wish someone would do a fan edit just following Jackson. Lang’s acting as Jackson is the only redeemable thing in this film IMO. Confederate Propaganda or not, the movie just sucks. Period.
To be fair, the film is kind of a Jackson's fan edit...I mean, the director edited out any damnable characteristic, opinion and action(not only from Jackson, but all confederates, for that matter) to leave us with the more than holly, most awesome person the world has ever seen!!!
@@vitoravila9908 the same is true of Chamberlain and Hancock, no? Yes Jackson gets more screen time but he's portrayed no more or less favorably than they are...and one can argue he should be portrayed more than them as he was a Corps commander and by the end of the movie Chamberlain is a regimental XO and Hancock is a division commander.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I would say Jackson is portrayed a little more favorably but of course this may be due to his importance as a Confederate general as well as his unmistakably religious character (or just my bias)
Regardless, this idealization of characters (no matter which one) strikes me as superficial and, frankly, a little nauseating. And, not to mention, typical of propaganda pieces. Not definitive proof, but it's certainly a red flag.
Lang is an awesome actor. Hard to believe he is also Ike Clanton from Tombstone.
It was based on a book series...kinda, but they changed the title of the second movie to "Gettysburg," from "Killer Angels"...so I can see your point
Your argument of "That's what they saw themselves as" as a justification for the directorial choices regarding the portrayal of the confederacy is very weak. The Nazis saw themselves as a superior race, yet if a director making a WW2 film depicted the nazis as ubermensch who were destined to rule over all "lesser" races, that would be absolutely 100% propaganda even if it is what the nazis actually believed.
If a film-maker put a heroic score over the 30th January 1939 speech of Adolf Hitler, in which he outlined his intention of the holocaust, what do you think the intentions of that film maker were?
Growing up in Alabama, I was raised on the “Lost Cause” myth and unfortunately fell for it as a history buff. I can see easily Atun’s point that the movie is propaganda. That being said though, with the exception of a few scenes in the film, I still appreciate the film for its history. It’s films like this and Gettysburg that really made me look at the various battles and I think the movies are accurate on that part. The views expressed by the confederates leading up to the first Battle of Bull Run are also accurate and should be seen but not glorified today, which I saw all the time living in the south. There is no doubt in my mind that these movies pump up people who believe in the myth, especially the slavery scenes and those scenes could have and should have been written differently. Jackson’s death even though it’s re-enacted from the events, can’t really help from looking like he was a martyr, considering how his faith played such a role in his life, which a lot of southerners admire today. I think that’s why both he and Lee seem like Greater than Life figures to people today who believe the myth. There’s a 2004 documentary called Warriors of Honor that touches on that. In the end, I think that the real bias in the film is actually the bias that we interpret on our own.
It's no different from current US propaganda in modern movies. It's not trying to convert you into some sort of "neo-confederate" guy.
As a Texas resident (having been both student and teacher), I do not share your experience. The Civil War and racism are HAMMERED into the curriculum.
@@Austin_Schulz I see where you are coming from. But I have to say that with respect to the civil war, Texas is not Alabama. There's a lot of lost causers from Alabama, and a lot less from Texas.
@@Austin_Schulz "The Civil War and racism are HAMMERED into the curriculum." That's changing in TX and FL. Hell, in FL schools, "slavery" is now, by law, referred to as "the enslavement experience" and the racism downplayed significantly. TX is going down that same path with its curriculum.
@@BigSleepyOx CRT is propaganda and the BLM movement is a Marxist propaganda group.
"they wouldn't pillage their own state"
Correct me if I'm wrong but I could've swore there were several incidents of confederate soilders stealing from southern citizens
It was also law.
That’s factual. Especially near the end of the war.
What's even more interesting is that VLTH himself has talked about that very thing.
I am from the south and I can attest that this movie is Wish we were back in those times porn for MANY. It is talked about like it was a what-if scenario. Maybe that is why you see it different than him...He is in NO( I am in Texas) and this movie is revered by many. I know some in my family have taken to watching every year at Christmas.
Crazy how different our experiences are as southerners. Born and raised in Arkansas and I've never even heard anyone mention this movie at all.
@@xXRazorbacksXx LOL, exactly, I live in NC and most people don't want to talk or especially watch anything about the civil war. I enjoy reading or watching things about the civil war from time to time but nowhere near being my favorite thing to focus on. I didn't see propaganda in this movie but I thought it was boring as s@@@ and I really enjoyed the Gettysburg movie.
I appreciate your perspective! To me however, I have to agree with Atun-Shey. But it's the dangers of the film being pro confederacy. It's propaganda in the sense that we see the confederacy solely as "good guys".
The fact this was made around the same time as those other popular comments but only has (at the moment) 10 Likes, is concerning, to say the least.
@@godlessgod096 ?
@@BeDangerousSomeMore I'm implying those other people were convinced by the film and fell for the propaganda. Simple as.
@@godlessgod096 The person who made this video laid out several arguments against the proposition that 'Gods and Generals' is propagandistic. What, specifically, is your response to these arguments?
@@patavinity1262 im not from the US and only recently started learning more about the history of the nation and the problem i had with this film is that, as an outsider the movie 100% shows the confederacy being morally superiour in every way to the Union. The film potrais the cause of the confederacy as nobel, which it simply wasnt. Do we have films depicting south africas apartheid goverment as just this real nice place that was wrongly made to change its ways? Ofc not, because the ideas that could provoke when viewed by someone not yet familiar with the subject could form dangerous opinions that arent based on actual history and facts. The point is god and generals does pick a side and a point of view that doesnt show the whole picture. The film isnt in my opinion propaganda, its just misleading and insulting to the entire study of history.
I think what you're missing here isn't about the historical accuracy of speeches or battles or people, but in the filmmakers choice in what speeches and battles and people to portray and from what perspective. Such as choosing to include Lincoln's cold hearted letter saying the casualty rate was low and some of the asshole bureaucrats of the North, while completely ignoring the articles of confederation or the planter class discussing their want to succeed to preserve and expand slavery. It's not that what was shown aren't things that are historically inaccurate, it's that what was shown was cherry-picked to put the south in the best possible light while ignoring completely their entire reason for war.
Can’t wait for part 2 of this (or 3) because my dad has a cameo as the Re enactor picture on a cell phone! Was weirdest moment when I watched the video the first time! Love your stuff
My only question is, what’s the line between historical accuracy and propaganda?
I can understand the arguments his video makes. Painting the confederate as the “good guys” is overall a bad look. I suppose it really comes down to the knowledge you may have on the actual subject.
But that’s my point about perspective. I never saw the movie as painting the Confederates as good guys.
That's the nuance of war. Who is good or bad when they're being shot and stabbed and in some cases, burned alive? I think that it's fine to focus on the struggle of the individual without forcing a greater narrative upon them.
@@VloggingThroughHistory First, love the channel and all the work you do!
I think your depth of knowledge and understanding of the Civil War make it so that when you view the film you just see the accuracy and don’t see any issue with it because you have so much additional context outside of the movie. But for someone without that additional context, if this was their first exposure to the civil war it would be tough to argue they got an accurate representation of it. That may not be the point of the movie, but it should be considered.
Full transparency: never saw the movie so I’m going off of just the reaction video
I have been watching a lot of your videos lately and since you asked people from other countries to contribute, here is my 2 cents:
I am a Brazilian International Student in the USA. I have watched Gods and Generals about a decade ago and I have recently re-watched it after I took my classes on American Government and American History in college. I had two distinctive views after watching it in these separate occasions. On the first time I did, I really enjoyed it as a military movie, since it portrays a lot of different scenes of battles and the dialogue did not bother me that much. Maybe it was because my movie standards were lower at that time, maybe I was not educated enough on the reasons of the Secession War...
The second time I watched it, it felt different. I agree when you point on how he criticizes the movie by stating his opinions as facts sometimes, but I did feel like they did put the Confederate Army as a righteous people. BUT, here is where context is relevant... after you said that many of the scenes are word-by-word what those characters said at those events, then the movie moves to a more realistic and historically accurate description of that time. The feeling after watching it recently was that it sounded more like a Confederate propaganda just like Shei describes it, but since it had left a bad taste in my mouth I wanted to hear your take on it, and I agree after hearing what you said, it is not propaganda. But I can't deny the fact that to those that do not have the historical background to understand, it may seem either like just a bad movie with some cringe dialogue (the Lemonade and Christmas scenes were terrible imo), while to others who have a racist tendency, due to a bad upbringing or just because he/she is a bad person, it might seem appealing as Shei depicts it.
It is as you have said, it is a matter of perspective and there is no right or wrong on your or Shai's take.
Sorry for a long comment, hope that it brings something to the table on what you were looking for.
Hey, thanks for freeze-framing me peeling potatoes at 17:38! My very (very) brief Hollywood career!
I think the point about music is an intricate one. Generally, the dialogue, actions and expressions of characters on screen all give insight into how the characters are feeling. However, the soundtrack is not for the benefit of the characters on screen--they can't hear it. The soundtrack is only for the audience, and is meant to guide the audience's emotions.
Let's take the scene at 15:00 as an example. Here we can obviously tell that the characters on screen are happy about the secession and Lee's appointment. We know that because of the standing, cheering and clapping. That's how the characters feel. As an audience we should not feel positively about this, so the music should be ominous, not uplifting.
As a comparison, let's examine a scene towards the end of Revenge of the Sith. Palpatine is reorganizing the Republic into an Empire. We hear the 'thunderous applause', we know how the galactic delegates feel! Just because we know how they feel about the Empire, doesn't mean we are supposed to feel the same way. In that scene, the music is depressing and negative, which is how the audience is supposed to feel about the fall of democracy---it contrasts with the way the characters feel.
TLDR: The music doesn't necessarily have to reflect the way the characters on screen feel. It is supposed to reflect the way the audience feels about the situation unfolding. By choosing uplifting music, at certain scenes, the director wants us to feel HAPPY about the events. That is what exposes the bias on the part of the director.
Very well put. Score is a huge defining part of how you convey what you as the director or sound designer want the audience to feel i know some very good videos from sideways on that topic that unfortunately wouldn't fit in the repertoire of this channel.
I agree with your statement. Music is only heard by the audience and not the characters. So, as you said, the music is meant to influence what the people in the audience feel and not what the characters feel.
@@night6724 I want to tell you that I don't disagree. I didn't refresh the page so I didn't see your first comment. Other than that you do make a good point as well. But the first comment brought up the fact that music affects one side and not the story's characters. This point you make with the American Revolution is true however, British people WOULD be offended by this and American's WOULD feel happy about it. But again, it's the audience who feels it and not the characters, though at first, like I, we think the characters also feel the way we do. Totally valid points by all sides.
@@night6724 I can't think of an example in history where one side wasn't atleast a little bit worse than the other. Feel free to correct me if you can think of any
If that is your logic, shouldn’t this movie be like 5 hours of ominous music? Should it be triumphant music when Jackson dies? Creating the music like you say is exactly the bias VTH is pointing out. You are putting your spin on what you THINK should be the mood in the scene based on today’s opinions, not what the characters are feeling
I don't see the problem with portraying both sides as human. Vilify the systems that were in place but not the soldiers.
16:13 I think this part shows the perspective difference between you and Atun-shei the most. His argument is that the combination of triumphant music, lighting effects and character actions works toward presenting a pro-confederate viewpoint. Your perspective is that such things don't automatically prove a film is propaganda, and it's dangerous to assume a director's intentions without stalwart material proof.
My personal opinion is somewhere between the two, but leaning slightly towards Atun-Shei. I mean, I personally do believe that the score, the atmosphere, and the dialogue serve to glorify the position and goals of the Southern states, but I do agree with you that we can't be entirely certain and 'label' that film as propaganda unless the director explicitly admits so. Atun-shei's critique does have some merits, but I think he jumped to conclusions a bit too quickly on this particular video.
Personally, I think it's at best really goddamn stupid to say that you can only say that something is propaganda if the creator explicitly says so.
I’ve just recently discovered your channel and have really loved your videos so far. They’re a joy to watch, even when your perspective seems more personal than even-headed.
What’s so baffling to me is how forgiving you are of this movie for being so clearly motivated to advance a perspective that is not historically sound. I have no problem with exploring different perspectives. It can be a thoroughly profound project to examine the humanity of those who are too often viewed as villains. Let’s imagine a movie that portrays the life of Stonewall Jackson from his own perspective. This would be possible as an interesting and moving movie without being propagandistic. This movie shows slavery in a way that’s not just sanitized and romanticized, but as truly different than even Jackson would’ve seen it. He might’ve seen his perspective as righteous and justified, but his view of life in the south could not have been so naive and unconsidered.
There’s no question that some slave owning families had relationships with their slaves that might’ve been seen as benevolent and kind. People who “loved“ their slaves and were even loved by their slaves could be said to have loved their dogs as well. How many of us consider our pets to be our family members? But regardless of this, stonewall Jackson never had such a sanitized view of slavery. Even forgetting of all the torture and abuse and dehumanizing treatment that was the daily truth of so many Americans, the fundamental fact of the ownership of humans had an indelible effect on our country that will be a terrible blight on our country that you cannot so easily write off.
You take a lot of exception for things in the movie that are factually portrayed. You must know that the very best propaganda is the kind that shows true things and true quotes presented in such a way that distorts reality by the way that they’re presented. If it was possible, one could create create the best kind of propaganda by time traveling and showing actual people saying and doing actual things. As a work of art, there’s no way to be unbiased, but your work becomes propagandistic when your agenda becomes as clear as it is in this movie. I wouldn’t mind seeing a movie that is shown as the perspective of a slave owner who has his livelihood at risk. There’s no question that decent humans can be flawed in the face of our selfish biases. But this isn’t that. This is barely better than the Birth of a Nation.
I have an ancestor who wasn’t a slave owner in the Deep South, who diligently wrote diary entries throughout the time before and after the civil war, and it seems clear to me that her diary entries reflect a very typical view of the white south. It’s just a little heart wrenching to read those entries around the time of Lincoln’s assassination. She was a schoolteacher and single mother in Tennessee, and it’s like reading the thoughts of some awful apologist to read her diary. Descriptions of how folks viewed black people - both before emancipation and after - are shocking to a modern sensibility.
I only mention this because if she saw this movie, she’d be stunned by how romanticized this movie is in showing the way of life in the south. It’s honestly shocking, and the perspective is vividly clear, and I’m disappointed that you can’t see how damaging this kind of film is in misrepresenting the crimes of our past.
I’ll keep watching your videos and I have a sense that you’re a really good person, and I can only think that you’ve made a mistake in misapprehending the agenda of this movie.
Best wishes.
The only part about the movie that was kinda meh was the slave scenes with stonewall jackson. however... this stuff DID happen. I was in this movie (we supplied horses and cannons as well as technical advice and being extras my boss is the one pulling the carriage up to the house in one of the cutscenes) but you cannot deny that things things actually happened here as historical. Could he have shown less of the things that seem to sway peoples views towards this being a lost cause movie? sure but it does not mean it is not true.
@@Redemptionproject09 I’m not saying it wasn’t. Thanks for replying. I hope you agree that it really does matter how you direct your lens toward or away from the truths that present themselves. I think a photographer (for instance) could tell a lie by being too selective.
Totally agree, he came across as almost offended that someone criticized this movie.
@@Fendelfull I agree with pretty much all Chris says in this vid. The movie is told from the South’s perspective so of course it’s going be playing powerful music when their winning battles and sad music when Stonewall dies etc because that is the South felt during those events. Yes I get the movie doesn’t mention it’s slavery aspect a lot but at the same time, Stonewall or any of the souths leadership wasn’t exactly walking round camp talking about slaves and how much they hate black people etc which is what u seem to want be portrayed in this movie.
Plus Atun-Shei is a hypocrite because he call G&G’s out for its propaganda but has defended The Patriot before despite it being way more historically inaccurate and way more of a propaganda piece.
@@AdmiralHistory I agree. Atun Shei is a joke and a hypocrite at best. The Patriot and other historical dramas like TURN Washington’s Spies were more historically inaccurate than Gods and Generals, and yet he doesn’t call out those dramas inaccuracies? hmm 🤔 so if Hollywood made a movie today about the perspective of the British and George III he would call that gray area “evil propaganda” I won’t deny that Gods and Generals downplayed some things in the film but it isn’t revolved around slavery not everything relating to the Civil War is about race and slavery. Stonewall Jackson as far as I know did not have black people he did not hate his slaves. If Lee and Jackson were war criminals like NB Forrest and exterminated the blacks which they didn’t even though their political institution believed in white supremacy then Lee would have likely been tried as a war criminal and hung after the war. He was no war criminal. I don’t condone the lost cause but I love the North and the South. In war there is no such thing as every single soldier fighting for an ideology as individually good or bad. Yes the political ideology of the CSA was terrible but individually the soldiers thought they were fighting for what they believed was right. As human beings we have good and then the not so good qualities in us as humans we have done good and bad deeds. I believe that in regards to the Revolutionary War and the Civil War that there were folks who genuinely did good but at the same time bad things. In conclusion Atun Shei is a sick joke for a historian. Sure he had his sources from academic writing and books but has he actually read the novel Gods and Generals before whining about the movie? I think not
I think part of the issue is what was chosen and what was ignored. Sure Union soldiers pillaged stuff, but so did the Confederacy yet only one is shown. Why is only one side shown? It is known that Confederate troops did pillage in Virginia. That shouldn’t be a surprise, as you correctly pointed out most soldiers identified with the state that they were from, and most confederate soldiers in Virginia were not from Virginia.
I'm probably a little late with this comment but I wanted to give my take on the film and on potential biases I see. I want to start by saying all my comments are not intended as attacks on you. I have seen quite a bit of your content so I am well aware that you are very informed on the Civil War and are a very knowledgeable individual who's clearly passionate about this time period. I have been very pleased/impressed with your assessments on many videos and issues. So, with that aside out of the way, here's my take, starting with where I disagree with Atun-Shei.
I disagree with numerous points from Atun-Shei and have my own misgivings about his videos such as:
-I agree with you that Atun-Shei holds very strong opinions and often views them as facts or doesn't allow wiggle room on opinions. This is not uncommon with people but he does appear to be a bit blind to his own.
- I don't have any problems with using powerful music during battles. Music and choreography often make battles interesting to watch and the average movie goer would have no interest if it didn't exist.
- I don't have any issue with the Union being portrayed as incompetent while the South was portrayed as competent. That's just history at this point. The reality of it is that many Union generals did not view the Southern forces as a threat and often were slow to act and very uncoordinated. The South, in contrast, recognized that the war had them at a significant disadvantage so they took the Union army very seriously and were eager to assert dominance quickly.
- I don't have any issue with Southern speeches to troops/people/government being overly optimistic and framing the war as a noble fight for their future. That's literally how they would have portrayed it and how they did feel about it.
- I don't have issues with the common soldier believing that the war was for a just and noble cause and about their rights. Wars across history have been faught for wrong reasons but most soldiers believe that they are fighting to make the world a better place (apart from Vietnam..... yeah... most US troops drafted were not happy to be there).
Those were all issues that Atun Shei seems to have taken with the film but I don't really see anything wrong with that. However, I think there are some fair points that have been brought up that I think you may be unwilling to acknowledge as well.
- The film has a tendency to show northern leaders as greedy, selfish, or ignoble. You mentioned how, the South, would have viewed the north as tyrannical and the film was simply portraying that when it showed the South, discussing the issues. However, whenever the film actually shows the North, they are often shown with low moral character or in a negative light. Portraying the South's opinion of the north by showing Southern leaders or troops discussing things is one thing, but once the film portrays the actual northern soldiers or leaders acting that way, it is making a statement that they really are of low moral character. I would not have minded if the Southern leaders and troops disparaged the North and frequently portrayed them as awful people, but then displays of the Northern troops show that not really to be the case. I'm not saying that the North need to look like heroes, but portraying the average northern soldier as equally fervent in his belief that he's marching to save the Union would go a long way. That way, you start to realize that both governments made lofty speeches and troops on both sides, viewed their actions as righteous. As it stands, the Southern troops always look like heroes and righteous people with the Northern troops always look villainous. It's reminiscent of The Patriot, but even in that case, at the very least the British troops didn't come off as horrible, just the leaders.
- The Film only shows 1 racial slur, and it's used by a northern leader. The south is frequently displayed as kind to their slaves and the slaves are frequently shown as loving their masters and loving the South. I have seen videos of you in the past defend this by saying that some slaves really did believe that and many Northerners really did feel racist towards black people. I am not denying that many northerners were racist. By modern standards, most would probably seem like white supremacists. The North did not go to war to free slaves, they went to keep the union intact. However, most southerners were also intensely racist and the vast majority of slaves were treated horribly. If you are arguing that it's fair to depict the Union soldiers being racist because many were, you can't argue that it's fair to show the slaves loving their masters and the south because some were. That's a double standard. Most slaves would not have loved their masters. Most slaves yearned for freedom. Most Southerners did not view slaves as members of the family. They were viewed as less then human and as property. If this movie was entirely from the point of a southern soldier or leader, then it would be fair because people have internal biases that blind them to their own issues. However, the movie takes multiple points of view, with some in the north. When the south is portrayed, they are always in a noble light, but when the north is portrayed, it is often portrayed less nobly.
I think those 2 points are what seem to suggest that the creator of the movie took a very very strong stance in favor of the Confederacy. It's a watered down version of history that whitewashes the truth. I'm not saying that movies from different points of view can't exist, but it's also not good to look at those types of movies as being honest to history. The South may have felt that they were in the right and all the scenes displaying them are fine, but once scenes start showing the North and they are displayed so much more negatively, it appears there is an agenda.
It's generally not a good sign when an argument can be countered by "but that's what happened."
It's generally not a good sign when you completely miss the point. That any of it happened was never the problem.
I have to say that the first time I watch Gods & Generals, I thought much the same way as this channel. However, since then I have spoken to Southern friends about it and have witnessed this movie referenced as a kind of rallying cry for the lost cause and a vehicle for the hero worship of Jackson. I can see both sides. But, one thing that was not mentioned here was Atun-Shei's point that the one racial slur was said by Joshua Chamberlin's brother. That also strikes me as a very odd choice for a movie largely placed in the slave-holding South mostly in the perspective of the Confederates. There is something seriously messed up with the way this movie portrays slavery and the relationships of the plantation class with their slaves. Granted, Northerners were, as we would see it today, quite racist and no doubt used racial slurs. But are we really to believe Southerners were courteous, respectful and loved each slave as a member of their family? Knowing military buffs (say, WWII obsessives and their very odd reverence/hate for the Nazi war machine) I can perhaps forgive the triumphant battle flag waving scene in Chancellorsville (while still understanding Atun-Shei's point) but the slavery issue is just too much to swallow.
There were southerners who treated their slaves and loved them , there who southerners who mistreated them . That’s not to say slavery is right . This film is just showing that not all slaves were mistreated . Do not understand why people are so upset by this film when most of it was just true 🤷🏻♂️
@@epicduckz98 The film needs to show the brutalities of slavery as well as the occasional case of slaves being treated as family members. It's not that there were no cases of the latter happening, it's that it didn't happen to the extent this movie shows. This overrepresentation of "good slavery" is damaging because it makes it look like the Confederacy fought for something good. I suppose there are people who believe that regardless but I fear these people would secretly like for slavery (or a similar racial/economic based hierarchy) to still exist.
@@epicduckz98it doesn’t matter whether they “treated their slaves well”. THEY OWNED THEM. If you love somebody you don’t have them as your property.
@@epicduckz98also sure the movie doesn’t technically have many inaccuracies, but they leave out a lot of history. It lying by omission. It like making a movie from the pov of the nazis and not mentioning the holocaust and trying to downplay anti-semitism. You have to be dense to not understand what the director was trying to do.
Do you still have that original reaction up? I'd like to watch it.
There's just so many issues with war movies when you get right down into the nitty-gritty. It's a major societal impulse when dealing with the South or Nazis or other blatantly "bad" sides to make sure that everyone knows you think that they're bad. You want to be certain that your stance of "I do not support this side in any way shape or form and what they fought for was awful oh my god" comes across loud and clear. Just like how you've had to re-iterate multiple times that you don't support slavery or the South's goals simply because you're defending certain individual aspects of the movie's story.
Gettysburg and Gods and Generals don't really do that. In fact, they omit slavery pretty much entirely and paint both sides as relatively equal, but now you lose the whole context of what the war was about and the Confederacy comes out of it looking better as a result. Balancing all these different factors isn't easy, especially if you want to have a nuanced story that's more than "Dur, Americans good, Germans bad", for example, but I don't think the director did a particular good job here.
That's why I feel that some of Quentin Tarantino's movies are so good, there's no sugar coating things or making sure that the audience thinks he's a good, nice, virtue signalling person at the end of the day.
@@m.j.e.5245 Django Unchained is very interesting in that sense. There is a clear difference with how the violence of the gunfights is displayed (almost comedic in some cases) and how the violence of slavery is displayed (as much more somber and realistic).
I don't have a strong opinion but while I would agree on all your statements that the film just showed what the Confederacy thought so that in of itself isn't propaganda. But Atun-Shei is right. Its not what they showed but what they DIDN'T show. It only included speech and dialogue that pointed to 'states right' or 'countering aggression and oppression' but excluded any mention of slavery in the secession scene and then you combine it with how slaves are shown to be sympathetic to their "owners" etc. And the PoV used for the Unions are not as nice as the ones picked for the Confederacy. Its not that the scenes are wrong, its that the director CHOSE SPECIFIC speeches that make the confederacy all about states rights and mot slavery. While the Union as heartless and amoral. Its nitpicking examples to portray in the film and excluding those that hurt the political narrative.
To drive this point home. "The North is coercive against the South" is indeed a opinion they held and showed in the film. But "slavery is nature's way" was also a opinion they held yet is completely excluded. If the film strictly wanted to portray the perspective of the Confederacy, them both should have been included. But it wasn't because one would be found repulsive by the modern AUDIENCE despite not being so to the main cast.
The middle school psychology take of “duuuhhh, everyone holds bias” is so obvious man and it’s obvious from the hordes of confederacy apologists online we’ve had to endure that worship the film
I’m sure these comments will be full of great apolitical takes about the current subject.
Oh boy i just encountered a biased comment a while ago
Everything is political, you cant take politics out of any subject especially history.
@@Gravelgratious I'm sure I can talk about science without it being political though.
I think you make a lot of great, solid points here. I'm a big fan of Atun Shei but I think you may be right that there's a bitterness towards the Lost Cause, which isn't unwarranted. He's also a big movie buff so it's easy to see why this is his perspective on the film. I appreciate your perspective on this too it really brings extra context to the film
Is pointing out that bitterness necessary though? This reaction video, in my opinion, focuses way too much on ad hominem attacks... What does Atun-shei's upbringing have anything to do with the validity of his criticism? His criticism is either true or false, his upbring and whatever motivations (which by the way, this video's conjecture at AS's motivations based on his upbringing are completely subjective and cannot be prove true or false, so they should be irrelevant) his upbringing may have influenced have absolutely nothing to do with whether his criticism is true or false.
When a scientist publishes a study for peer-review, the peers actually reviewing the study don't make statements or criticisms over the scientist's personal live or their possible motivations for engaging in their study, they stick to the validity of the claims made in that study, and to examine anything outside of that is completely irrelevant to assessing the accuracy of the study..... See what I'm saying? It just seems like this reaction rested upon attacking the messenger instead of the message, which is a very weak way to refute any argument, so much so that it's been deemed a logical fallacy, the ad hominem logical fallacy
@@post-leftluddite what ad hominem attacks did he make? Nothing was said about AS's character at all. At worst the remarks made were speculative conjecture as to why his perspective is what it is, which adds context, and VtH pointed out some inconsistencies in the logic presented while acknowledging his bias on the subject and his opinions. This isn't a scientific study, it's a reaction video to someone else's opinion on a movie.
Even if Atun Shei is "bitter" his points on how as a film G&G is objectively terrible are accurate. Vlogging through History even admits it's "cringey" outside of the battle scenes. The thing is this 4 hour movie has got maybe 45 minutes of military focused scenes. Even if we were to admit all those scenes are amazing (which they are not) the other 3 hours are a drag and suck. It's just not a good movie putting the politics aside, which we shouldn't because it's a political film
Let me preface this with the following:
I am neither a huge civil war buff, nor an expert on film. Most of my historical knowledge centers around europe, since this is where I live and what our school education (on the subject of histroy) is centered around.
Also! I really do love your reaction videos and your perspective on those videos. I rarely find it so easy to respectfully disagree with someone, while acknowledging their point of view. Huge props on how you handle the interaction with your viewers and followers!
To the point... I only watched the movie, because this reaction and your and atun-shei's opposing views intrigued me very much. I was left utterly bored for 300+ minutes. Why 300+ minutes if the movie isn't that long? Because I paused and checked some of the things you said and addressed in your reaction and tried to read up on some of the speeches. As an academic - I always check the sources ;).
I tend to agree with both of you (or neither depends on how you want to see it)... First off the dialogue is often cringeworthy (as both of you said).
From an outside (european) perspective I got the feeling that the movie would leave you reenforcing what you already believe. I get how, if you tend to see the world throught the "Lost Cause" view (or even fully subscribe to it) the movie might feel like the "awesome propaganda piece" atun-shei describes it as. I, personally, was left with even more disgust and contempt for people (and their believes) like jackson, stephens, lee, and others, than I held for them before. While it is true that the movie is accurate in many, many aspects it also depicts the confeds rather favorably (imo more than they deserve) not only through the selection of what was shown (historic timeframe, scenes, people, etc.) and what was omitted, but also how the scenes involving characters of both sides were differently underlined (lighting, music, positioning of characters within the shot).
I get that it is the movie adaptation of a book, but nonetheless it is too much of a favorable depiction of the confeds (imo).
Let me reiterate in closing, that this comes from someone who doesn't know a lot about the american civil war and these are only the feelings and impressions that I was left with after watching the movie (having seen this video beforehand). No expert opinion, no scientific truth.
I think Atun-Shei's issue was not just that the Confederacy wasn't portrayed as the villains, but that it was essentially not portrayed as villainous in any way. Anyway, I'm pretty sure that he has since admitted that he went a bit overboard on this because it irritated him.
What's the difference between being portrayed as a villain and being portrayed as villainous? Sounds like the same thing.
@@JeanValjean875there is a difference between being shown as a saint with no flaws (ie not villainous in any way) and being shown as the flawed people they were (not shown as villains) no matter how you view this movie, slavery was, is, and always will be wrong. Wiping that sin entirely from these characters is as dishonest as portraying them as completely evil.
If I remember correctly, Atun-Shei went to film school, so I think his education in film making informs a lot of his opinions here, whether he is correct or not
I was honestly surprised when Andy flat-out denied the existence and inevitable infusion of biases into media whenever it's created, and it kind of put me off.
Forward: I'm a Canadian so I've obviously been raised with a different view on this topic, but I see this movie as a propaganda piece made to make the south look like heros.
I think your points are often valid but I think your missing the point of his words. For example with Jackson, it's not that it wasn't what he believed, it's that he is being portrayed as a Saint not the monster he was. He believed doesn't erase that the belief was foul, not just in retrospect but even at the time, despite what they believed.
Basically: a historical biopic is made to show the history, but the 'South was a good thing' that drips from this movie when they're being pictured as heroes is very gross
This feels like if you made a WW2 film and ended it with the reveal of the plans for Operation Barbarossa? In hindsight we see their fall is foreshadowed, but after hours of showing them as the Champions of Europe, that doesn't help, and could easily be used as a propaganda piece, hinting at the 'if only...' implied by such an ending.
I'm glad I got to see the original, I liked your forthcoming with your thoughts and emotions.
Shaara, the author himself, did not like G&G because its filled with Lost Causer bumpkus. He said Gettysburg is basically 99% of his father's book and Gods & Generals is 1% of his book.
"It has a happy slave, my book doesn't have a happy slave in it!" He was being classy and professional but you can tell in the interview he was pissed off.
I propose a question. Can an icons meaning change over time? Can a people group embrace an aspect of a symbol and over time distil what that symbol represents into just that and discard the rest despite it being there originally?
Oh, yes it can. Just look at the swastika, which is a really prevalent symbol in South-East Asia, but became a symbol of a facist regime and now is mostly considered inapropriate in western societies.
@@NeonSpeedster Good example. Can it go the other way? Can a bad symbol be turned good?
@@AnimeSquirrel umm to answer that last question I would say no. I wouldn’t say it’s impossible but the more damage done under that symbol the harder it would be to forgotten. It also doesn’t help that others use symbol to still advocate for more damage.
@@jordanazevedo5688 I mostly agree. It's how I think the "Rebel" flag used today is. Many people have faith in the singular idea of states rights and attribute it to the south in the war. I believe that's the core of the myth. But many people believe that's what the modern incarnation of that flag stands for and, imo, most of these are not racists nor support slavery.
But the stain left by the original users if said flag is not forgotten. So where does that leave us? With angry people in a changing world. That's my view anyways.
@@AnimeSquirrel the only thing that comes to mind right now would be the cross: a torture / execution device that today is a symbol of faith for millions.
I have a lot to say, first we shouldn’t do high school history of pointing out that people are biased, everyone’s biased. Autun Shei has essentially made a historiography paper in which his thesis is “Gods and Generals is pro Confederate Propaganda” and uses primary sources in support of his point, a proper response should use primary sources of your own and I get that its hard to do that with a reaction video. Secondly, Ambrose Burnside is being portrayed poorly, it’s completely left out that Burnside submitted a plan to cross the Rappahannock in 3 days with pontoons, the pontoons were delayed and Burnside was told to attack anyways. The attack on Maryne’s heights is not the main attack but a diversion, the actual attack went pretty well but Sumner is a moron and didn’t give proper orders. The movie makes you think that Maryne’s heights are the only battle.
it takes courage and wisdom to admit you didn't do as well as you wanted to, and come back for another try. i have a lot of respect for that, and for you.
I think you are being very fair to Atun-Shei, as he is very biased. I myself was fed The Lost Cause by my dad, but as a military historian, always rejected it. I can understand why he thinks the way he does, but it is very nice to actually see someone take an objective approach to it. Whenever I have left a comment on his videos regarding anything, his fan base tends to brutalize me, even if what I am stating is entirely fact. Keep up the great work!
Unrelated info below. My wife and I planned our trip to Vicksburg, as well as the surrounding battlefield. I have been twice, but never to any of the other sites! I am loving your series, enjoying every episode! I am sharing it with her as she is a history buff like me and we share a love of Sabaton.
Same, every time I leave a comment disagreeing with Atun-Shei his fans come out and defend him.
That's not a problem but they always do so by attacking me or the person who I'm responding to, I wish people could put aside their biases and see arguments from the opposing view point.
Sadly people view disagreement as an attack on the content creator they enjoy.
@@svenrio8521 it really mirrors the political climate today. If you don't agree completely with one segment, you are the worst thing about society. We are losing the ability to critically think and apply logic. Variety used to be the spice of life. Now it will get you doxxed and fired.
This is some really good content imo. The passion you have for history is why I subscribed and this is a really good show of passion. Im here for this type of content.
Much respect to you for posting again about this, I’m a big advocate for not going back on what you say but I completely understand with taking a project you’re not quite proud of and reworking it to release it again; I think that shows real class.
@14:04 I think this is important that we still acknowledge *why* people in the past went to war, even when they were not fighting for the right thing. In fact, *especially* when they’re not fighting for the right thing, because we have to understand what could lead our fellow humans to feel so strongly over a subject, whether centuries ago or just a few years ago. History repeats, and so does war if you let it.
This is why I appreciate Sabaton especially, and why I love your reactions to them as well. We’re not singing about the Bismarck for what the men stood for, but about the willpower of the men who were doing the fighting, to understand their reasoning, remember the lives that were lost on both sides of the issue, and hopefully not repeat the tragedy.
Brit here. I'm with Shei. (As is the majority of film critics who did viewed it.) I haven't actually watched the film, but from the clips he and you show, he makes a compelling case that this film is either propaganda or near as makes no difference. With that level of white washing of the south, and black washing of the north, it's hard for it to be anything else. Even if the director's attention was to make a quick buck selling a circle-jerk film to the 'states rights' crowd, it still amounts to propaganda.
You can show perspective. For a european equivalent... Well, imagine a film about a group of german civilians living in Dresden, in the days leading up to the Thousand Bomber raid that reduced the city to ashes. You could tell a compelling story with sympathetic characters, and absolutely show the horror of what that night was like. But at the same time the film would absolutely have to include a scene of a Gestapo officer shooting a Jewish family. Because missing out the historical context would be grossly dishonest, and give the impression that the German nation was a innocent victim of WWII. When it really wasn't.
And this film missed out the historical context.
If there is anything I have learned from watching all this history over multiple channels over however long, is that there is no such thing as non-bias. Even if you are being objective or fact-driven, that is in itself, a bias.
Obviously humans are always going to be slightly biased due to our subjective experiences in life, but you're wrong to say that even trying to be non biased is itself being biased
this fixation on bias is just stupid. I wish we could move past the apex of debate being calling the other side a hypocrite.
I’m not sure “that’s how they saw things” is a compelling argument when we’re talking about art/fiction, because the storyteller chooses whose POV to represent and in what kind of light to represent that perspective.
Showing a perspective in a positive light is an active choice by the artist...just like minimizing the more negative aspects of that perspective is a choice. They may be using real words, but they are choosing which real words to use, when in the narrative to use them, & in what context.
As a German I can’t help but draw comparisons to WWII. And we don’t make movies that show the perspective of our relatives who fought in that shameful war in a heroic light because we don’t think it’s something to be proud of.
We learn about their perspective from history classes, books, our family, etc., but we don’t glorify it in art. So art from the southern POV that doesn’t highlight the ugliness of what they fought for, always feels really weird to me.
Can you imagine if there was a film that showed Hitler's POV where nazi invasions were shown with triumphant music, then either the Soviets or the British in a negative light?
@@dr.aisaitl7439 exactly. That sort of a movie would bomb horribly in Germany, no pun intended. And yet in the US, glorifying the CSA is not just tolerated but popular :-/
I think Atun Shei’s point is that Gods and Generals doesn’t reflect the reality of the Confederacy, while that Vince Vaughan and Mel Gibson movie (although I haven’t seen it) does reflect reality because those cops were being punished and said the exact same things those type of cops would say.
You consistently make the argument that this film makes sense in the way it’s portrayed from the Confederate perspective. But it’s not ‘really’ the Confederate perspective. The Confederate perspective was that of white supremacy and pro-slavery, not vaguely ‘state rights’ and ‘self-determination’ which is very much in the vein of the lost cause myth. For example, a more insightful portrayal would’ve been in one scene them giving long platitudes of patriotism and freedom, but then the very next scene a brutal portrayal of slavery and racism.
The music is important, especially from the point of view that Atun Shei has as a film student. Music is the emotion of the film, it’s what gives it its life. Try watching the Lord of the Rings without music. And if you watch Gods and Generals without music, it actually seems less pro-confederate.
Another thing that we ought to keep in mind is that you said so yourself, you’ve never held the lost cause opinion yourself. So, you don’t always view what Atun would view as blatantly pro-confederate material as pro-confederate. Atun recognizes the propaganda, because he once held those opinions himself. He knows what his former fellow lost causers would enjoy, You said “A lot of us never fell for it,” but respectfully, you must not have talked to a lot of working class, uneducated, conservative white Americans because they consistently believe in the lost cause myth or a variation of it, and frankly, my public education in a northern state, Indiana, was filled with historical falsehoods about the confederacy. In every conversation that I have about the civil war, the first thing I have to dispel is the notion of the war being about ‘states rights’, even with left leaning educated folks.
I’m not so familiar with your channel to know if you yourself have a history degree, but you certainly often look at topics in a methodical way that is typical of a disciplined historian. I’m sure you know, but in case you don’t, that in the discipline there are various broad ‘schools of thought’, i.e. consensus historians, materialist historians. Virtually all schools acknowledge that the war was about slavery from the confederate perspective, even ‘conservative’ historians, because there is such an overwhelming amount of evidence of it. However, lost cause falsehoods still get taught in public education systems, because it serves a Neo-confederate white supremacist purpose, even if it has evolved over the years to seem less malicious. This movie, Gods and Generals, 100% assists in maintaining that perspective.
24:35 do you think this was a product of the civil war or a cause of the conflict?
The sad part is that "The Last Full Measure" was going to be the third part in the series, which I assume would focus mostly on the north. Which means that the first movie is about the south (Gods and Generals), the second movie is more neutral (Gettysburg), and the third movie is about the north (The Last Measure). However, because "Gods and Generals" did poorly, we never got a third movie.
Edit: Yeah, the thing is that the Union, while better than the Confederates, weren't 100% good. It wasn't black and white, but more grey. In the Union, for example, immigrants were scapegoated whenever battles were lost (I remember German-Americans being blamed for poor performance, since they couldn't hold against Lee's attack during the Second Bull Run). Grant, sadly, issued General Order No. 11 (1862). The order expelled all Jews from Grant's military district, comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. Lincoln had to reverse the decision. The list goes on.
Gods and Generals might've benefited if they had, like Gettysburg, a 3rd party involved. For example, have a Frenchmen in the South, like Alexis de Tocqueville who went around questioning the Confederate beliefs. Maybe they did, as I'm not 100% familiar with Gods and General.
The Last Full Measure was my favorite book in the series, too.
The immigrant thing is something really should be brought up a lot. It's so easy for people arguing against the confederacy to fall into the "but the north wasn't good either" bs counterpoint from Lost Causers.
If i recall correctly, the mid 1800s had a strong nativist sentiment throughout most white "Anglican" (idk what other word for it) people in America. The Germans, as you mentioned, were seen as cowards and in general not liked. Yes the norther army was literally multicultural but i know for a fact i wouldnt be seen as an equal anywhere in the north (being Latino and all).
He said “Doesn’t every filmmaker have a bias too? Well, no.” He didn’t mean he doesn’t have biases, he was talking about filmmakers. He’s wrong, there’s no way for us to be 100% unbiased, but you misunderstood him.
Making a video for youtube still has the same principles as making a movie
8:45 I think you might be misunderstanding what he is saying. The "No" is in relation to the sentence about whether all films mirror the biases of their creator, as shown by the fact that he segues into a point about a movie that he believes has no bias. Now, one can easily disagree with that, but I think you are wrong to criticize him for not acknowledging his own biases, since I don't believe he has made that assertion.
10:40 The difference is that in Atun-Shei's opinion, Gods and Generals isn't accurately showing the way the sourtherners saw things. The southern perspective was definitively pro-slavery, especially among those characters that are focused on in the film (the upper class). Because of that, a better film would have kept the perspective, but shown that these people supported slavery. By all means, show that they were defending their home from what they believed to be northern tyranny, show them as patriotic southerners, but slavery was an integral part of the southern cause, and none of the generals would have shied away from acknowledging that at the time.
26:28 Of course acknowledging other causes does not deny that slavery was a cause, but *only* acknowledging the other causes and never acknowledging slavery *at all* in effect denies slavery as a southern cause.
35:00 That's one of the problems. Since the south did the same, but this film only shows a period and location that the north does it, it gives an impression that only the north was pillaging. In combination with the fact that none of the southern characters mention slavery at all without implying future abolition, the film does essentially show the Union doing all the bad things, and the southerners doing none of it.
I do agree that he is extra harsh, probably due to being a former lost causer, but also remember that he probably isn't worried about people like us (history buffs) being tricked by the lost cause, since we know the truth, but rather people who haven't read or seen much else. On the other hand, I guess one could argue that such a dry movie is only ever watched by history buffs.
Also, he comes at a lot of this as a filmmaker, and to him the story and total package is more important than raw historical accuracy (He even has a video called "No, historical accuracy in movies doesn't matter" where he pretty much says that thematic accuracy is more important than verbatim speeches, accurate events, and perfect uniforms). And because of the films focus and the fact that none of the southerners are positive about slavery, I think his opinion is that it is *more* historically inaccurate than it would be if every single speech, conversation, and event was made up.
Anyway, great reaction as always. Love to see your perspective.
Edit: Formatting mistakes
10/10
However, I will say that not only history buffs watch this movie. It is a super common movie in the south and rural America which is used to perpetuate the idea that the south was good and not the gross slavery pit it gets a reputation for being.
The south being this peaceful, honorable, benevolent area is a myth that goes hand-in-hand with the lost cause myth. G&G effectively reinforces that idea with no resistance at every turn and refuses to acknowledge the biggest, most glaring counter to such an idea (them wanting to preserve slavery).
There’s a difference between showing the other side (especially when that side isn’t shown/understood in popular culture) and promoting the other side.
I really appreciate you being open about what you agree and disagree with knowing that you'll get angry fans over you. It takes character to face that IMO.
If people felt certain emotions in the historical past, that doesn't mean that a filmmaker has to depict those emotions in the same way. For example: something bad can happen to the bad guy and it is depicted in such a way that the audience laughs at him or feels no compassion at all.
If a movie maker depicts the emotions in the same way that the character feels them, that suggests that the audience is at least expected to empathise with the characters, and often that it likes these characters.
Because of this, I generally agree with Atun Shei that the film engenders sympathy with the South, even if this was not even intended.
Just on the stonewall Jackson part. I dont undertand how Vlogging can disagree with AS on it. It was obviously there to make you feel certain things that AS pointed out and Vlog still rejects it with "i dont see it".
I haven’t watched the entire video yet but I watched the first time you reacted to it. I just want to say that it takes a big person to admit that they acted in a way they were not proud of. Not saying it was unreasonable but everyone thinks and believe in different things. Keep being you!!!
I believe his commentary on the generals death was more about him dying unceremoniously at the hands of friendly fire than him losing his life in the battle field fighting for his beliefs. The focus, to me, is more about how he died.
You are correct in that most movies do evoke a specific feeling through their score and framing, but I believe the issue being pointed to here, is the way in which it tries to make you feel. When triumphant music plays over a scene in a movie of say, the bad guy getting captured and you have the classic walk of the hero with everyone cheering, the movie is trying to evoke "Wow. They did it. Good won! Good job!" But when you take that same type of score to say... the south seceding, you end up with the movie now saying "Wow good job south! You really did the right thing! You're taking on the bad guys who want to control you!" While that may be how some people felt back then, I believe you can have an actor portray "This is how people felt" without also having the film making tricks saying "And they were right!" I would feel just as uncomfortable if a film played that same way with other historical moments.
I don't think you are wrong at all in many of your critiques of atun shei, but I think you are maybe... idk. Blind feels like too harsh, but maybe.. not fully aware of how the average person who isn't well versed in history views something like this movie. You may be able to go "Okay well the confederacy actually said X, Y, Z and look at the corner stone speech, and here is this and that and here is robert E lee being a human and making human mistakes and blah blah.." But the average person just hears the triumphant music and the deification of these long dead figures and goes "Wow. They really don't teach THAT in school do they!"
I don't look at the movie anywhere near as harshly as atun shei does, but I think you might have missed the mark ever so slightly. Still I as always love just how open and willing you are to always have these conversations. It really makes me respect you. Have a wonderful day.
Atun Shei is unfair toward Gods and Generals, criticizing it for very minor cinematography choices. But he's absolutely right that it's propaganda. And part of the propaganda is, yes, not treating the confederacy as villains (and in fact, going out of its way to villainize US troops).
Could you imagine a film that treated the Nazis as goodguys? Imagine if Downfall had been "neutral" in its depiction of Hitler.
inglourious basterds did a pretty good job at making the Nazis look good and the Jewish-Americans as savages. I mean Christoph Waltz as Standartenführer Hans Landa is a very likable character. Waltz deserved the Oscar.
This movie is pretty bad, but I would not call it propaganda. Atun-Shei's arguments were very subjective, such as talking about the score... It has some questionable moments, but so does Glory, North and South or The Hunley.
While I certainly take points on the accuracy of quotes and the characters points of views this film really skips over the months proceeding where the film starts. It’s embarrassing how much slavery is left out of this movie at all times and without a doubt the film seems to glamorize Virginia succeeding. You can certainly show their feeling of righteousness without adding a score that seems to shine a feeling of positivity behind it.
I’m a huge fan of your channel and Mr. Beat. I actually found you through his channel. Also a fan of Atun Shei. I think if you look at his older content visiting confederate memorials in NOLA, you’d maybe understand his viewpoint even more-so.
Anyway: I truly appreciate both you and Matt (Beat) because of your humility in addressing history. It’s very rare to get much diversity of opinion especially when discussing world history. Now, with US history it’s slightly better but it’s getting worse. You guys give me hope that we can reverse that trend. History may not *always* repeat, but when it doesn’t repeat, it still rhymes - to make a musical analogy I’ve heard before.
I’m a Cuban-American and on my mom’s side: my Viejo was a devout Catholic and Socialist (Democratic Socialist) where my Abuela is an Atheist and Conservative. Growing up, I was always taught to read and listen to all perspectives. If I was assigned to read Ayn Rand, he’d make sure I also read Das Kapital. To expound upon economics, I remember reading Keynes, Greenspan, Bukharin, and Trotsky all within a month or two of one another. It was always very balanced but not by taking the lazy middle road and wearing blinders to the rest - but by way of reading everything. The reason I bring this up is because I see a parallel to what you’re discussing regarding the CSA and it’s crimes versus (or in the context of) historical perspectives. In Cuban communities here in the states it’s very easy to get the impression that everyone hates the current situation. Which is true. But one thing that is often overlooked is that it was even worse in a multitude of ways before - under Batista. Some people use the struggles/mistakes/crimes of the past 70 years to aggrandize the criminal regime from before. Others use the travesties of the past to give the current regime a pass. Neither of those approaches is fair.
I suspect I'm just reiterating some already well-stated feedback but I can't help but want to add another voice pointing out that while Atun-Shei is guilty of failing to acknowledge the subjectivity and intense bias of much of his material it doesn't necessarily mean that he is completely wrong. I prefer for people to be more humble and intellectually honest but have very rarely observed that this is effective for establishing credibility and converting peoples' perspectives. Confidence and bold, absolute, rhetoric achieves more and if his objective is to convince the largest number of people of a certain point of view then he's probably taking the best approach - though I could not do it myself nor do I necessarily feel that it conforms with my personal sense of ethics.
On the point of concern with Gods & Generals you are honest in your own view that given the circumstances of your upbringing, education, and personality your experience watching the film is that you are not necessarily affected as if it were propaganda intended to inspire sympathy towards the Lost Cause or romantic pro-confederate sentiment but I think you're too dismissive of how persons with different backgrounds will respond to it. Having strongly pro-South/romanticizing family members who, in their youth, went as far as to call each other by the nicknames of famous confederate generals and decorate their vehicles and homes with confederate paraphernalia I can absolutely see how this film would only serve to validate and intensify the perspective of individuals already possessed of such bias in a dangerous way in the absence of an obvious balancing factor. The film doesn't require its audience to understand that it is playing up drama and romance for entertainment and omitting all of the other complicating factors for individuals and events portrayed and any given viewer is going to substitute whatever is unspoken with their own personal views. I won't argue that the film is inherently wrong but it is absolutely dangerous and while I hope the world has matured in their skepticism and objectivity since "The Birth of a Nation" it is eerily similar in promoting or validating unchecked positive sentiment towards causes that may not fully deserve it.
This is a universal hazard of any art-form that relies on romanticism in the portrayal of any subject. It can be exceptionally beautiful and aesthetically pleasing or satisfying but also lead to unwary consumers forming or reinforcing warped and confused impressions and expectations relative to reality. E.g. there's a lot of blame attributed to decades of popular media depictions of fateful and inevitably successful romances leading to generations with more failed marriages than successful ones as people failed to anticipate or participate in what an enduring relationship would actually require. I am sad to say it but, while I believe we should be free to produce and consume media of nearly any nature free of censorship (there's obviously a lot of moral boundaries that still need to be observed but broadly I'm saying political, religious, and sexual orientation etc should be allowed free expression), I experience a deep sense of fear when media is produced that superficially promotes unhealthy ideas or flawed ideologies that can be freely consumed by persons who may not necessarily understand that it's superficial.
I wouldn't rely on public education because even in liberal California I had history instructors who strictly insisted on teaching the Civil War as being primary concerned with "States Rights" and convincing impressionable young minds that slavery was merely a detail. Who insisted on showing "Gone with the Wind" to the class and trivializing the aspects of slavery and pointing to it as evidence of how the antebellum South was a serene paradise that the yankees had to spoil out of vicious spite. Entertainment media should not be relied upon to teach history.
I really enjoyed your analysis, it was very good and thought provoking.
To answer your question about the perspective of someone who is not American viewing this movie and the impression this movie had. Well... This movie definitely made me buy into the “lost cause myth”. Well obviously not just this movie, I just mean to point out that it definitely contributed to the misconception. And keep in mind that not only am I not American, but I am also from South Africa, and I am black... To be fair, I was pretty young and impressionable when I first saw this movie, and my passion for learning anything related to history, even if that information was incorrect, was insatiable… It took me many more years of studying and learning, to finally realise just how wrong I was about a lot of topics related to history…
I appreciate you taking the time to share your perspective.
I think that the biggest problem with Gods and Generals is that it is an unintentional propaganda piece. So, it’s not like the director meant for the movie to portray the South as fighting for a “righteous cause”, even by modern standards. But he unintentionally did exactly that. And it’s not the only movie with this flaw either.
That's a fair point to make, and had he made that one, I wouldn't have so much of an issue with it. But he makes it clear he sees it as very intentional and assumes the worst motives on the part of the filmmaker.
@@VloggingThroughHistory I completely agree with you about that point. As you pointed out in the video, he has a very hard time acknowledging bias. And I think that this is a lesson which can only be learnt by being formally educated and trained in the field of history. Which, if I remember correctly, you have. Understanding and spotting bias in your own work is not something which is easy to do, unless you have been specifically taught to do so.
Correctly me if I am wrong, but my understanding is that Atun-Shei is a history enthusiast. And he has definitely accumulated a significant amount of knowledge about American history. But he is not formally educated and trained in this field.
@@tebohomotsoeneng5994 From what little I know of Atun-Shei is that he used to be a tour guide for Civil War battlefield or battlefields. He might even still do this. I know he lives in New Orleans and I'm pretty sure he mentions being brought up on The Lost Cause myth from a very young age by his family. I can see why he has such a knee-jerk reaction to that myth, both real and percieved. As for being formally educated in the Civil War I have no idea. But I would argue that too often being formally educated on any subjects leaves lots of holes in your knowledge and biases based on the reference material.
I was a fan of the movie “Gettysburg” and really wanted “Gods and Generals” to be just as good. I didn’t enjoy it nearly as much and really wish it could be redone to be more faithful to the book. Also, I was raised and educated in KY where the “Lost Cause” theory was also part of the history curriculum. I didn’t buy it because it just didn’t make sense (even for a 5th grader). But even so, I don’t think I would call this movie propaganda. I would call it bad movie writing. This was a complex period in history that we have the benefit of hindsight for. They didn’t. I think history is better taught where we can see the complexity of the struggle (such as families, cities, Christian denominations, and states LIKE KENTUCKY where the battle of Wildcat Mountain was fought about 10 miles from where I grew up… being torn apart by the struggle and the politics of the time). Also, just because it involved a choir doesn’t make it “heavenly.” The aesthetic of the music from the charge (reminiscent of O Fortuna… not exactly uplifting) and from the death scene (more mystery of death than martyr) were not exactly lining up with his suggestions.
Isn't the famous Hatfield and McCoy feud partially because one of the family members joined the Union while the rest were loyal to the south (and was killed for it)?
Hey I’m from Lexington born and raised! Nice to meet a fellow KYian
Im a European and im appalled that they actually teach the "lost cause" theory in KY. Is this a common thing in some states?
@@debrickashaw9387 not so much anymore it was big in the south till about the 2000’s and most people never really learn about the civil war till high school we should honestly learn a lot more but never do
@@colton2680 Nice to meet you too. Please say hello to Rupp Arena for me!
Can anyone tell me when and how Atun-Shei fell for the lost cause myth? I really want to know more about it. Since all his videos seem to be against the lost cause myth. But people seem to talk about the time when he fell for it.
Because some aspects come cloaked in the guise of "the truth is in the middle" which is appealing to intellectuals, as for the most part the truth often is "in the middle." That's what makes Lost Cause Mythology so insidious. "Both sides can be wrong." "There's no one right answer." Etc. Platitudes that in BROAD STROKES are more or less true, but were never intended to be applied acutely and singularly. Lost Cause hides itself in that, and makes otherwise rational people susceptible. It's not far removed from "Hitler was trying to save Europe from Bolshevism." It puts the emphasis on something more people can be at worst simply ambivalent towards, while conspicuously remaining silent on *other things.*
As well, Andrew (Atun-Shei) had a career as a tour guide at Gettysburg and was involved in the CW reenactment scene, and, quite unfortunately, the CW reenactment scene is full of (if not dominated by) Lost Causers, either intentionally or because they never learned better. So it would be understandable if some of that bled in to his worldview at one point.
I will say that Atun-Shei has gotten better at presenting his arguments much more fairly and succinctly, and this is one of his earlier videos where he had a more youtube-centric approach to the subject. looking at his first 2(?) "Check-mate Lincolnites" videos versus the others, he definitely realized how bad his approach was initially. It would be cool if he revisited Gods and Generals with the same temperament that he had in his Gettysburg videos.
I noticed that too, he definitely knows that opinions don't people bad anymore. With God's and generals I personally think it's a good movie and I can't be more on the side of the union.
I feel like the first two videos were debunking the more ridiculous and stupid lost cause points so he didn’t need to fully engage. His later videos argue the more nuanced points so obviously he has to present more cohesive arguments to debunk them
He still is as far left as you can get, no matter how much he dresses himself up.
@@KasFromMass haha no, I don’t think he’s “far-left”, he seems to have dismissed that notion in the taxes and tariffs video. He seems more in the middle than that.
@@KasFromMass How is he as "far left" as you can get? Does he use too many words for your brain?
11:00
But in Dragged across concrete they don’t set out to make these cops seem sympathetic with emotional and musical cues, they aren’t portrayed as heroic.
In Gods and Generals the music swells up every seventeen seconds and the horses are the only ones that don’t give speeches.
VLTH seems to not understand that Atun-Shei is coming at this from the viewpoint of a filmmaker and cinematographer.
You asked for other people’s perspective, here was mine while I watched it: ZzzzZzzzZzzzZzzzzzZzzzzzzzz ach umph ZzzzzZzzzZzzzzzZzzzzzZzzzz
1:30 I had not expected you to take down any video, I was guessing due to normal TH-cam shenanigans you may have needed to re-release it. I look forward to this revisit.
You're constantly ignoring how Atun Shei is talking about the way the soundtrack is used.
Cinematography and moviemaking choices aren't on VLTH's radar the way they are on Atun-Shei's, as Atun-Shei (his name is Andrew btw) has a filmmaker education. I find it regrettable VLTH doesn't realize this, though VLTH on his own is great in what he does.
@@johnroscoe2406 Normal people don't give much of a sh*t about such things though.
@@POCKET-SAND your comment is pointless. They are both making videos of specific interest. "Normal" or not doesn't apply. I don't know what your point was supposed to be. Blind defense of VTH?
@@johnroscoe2406 No, more of an insult to Aten-shun over a crappy take over a movie.
@@POCKET-SAND Ok so you're just one of those people I see.