I think its really telling that the only racist lines in the script are put in the mouth of a northerner and you summer it up well. Yes many of not all northerners held this opinion, but to not have a single confederate use such terms is a deliberate and intentional twisting of history by the filmmakers
@@williamnicks2148 if only Stonewall Jackson was armed with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. He could've lobbest it at his foes, who, being naughty in the eyes of the Lord, shall have snuffed it.
Literally laughed out loud at the intro. My wife heard and came and checked on me, so I showed her the intro then SHE laughed. She went and got our dog and brought her in to watch the intro. Dog did not laugh. Conclusion: My dog is a Lost Causer...
I appreciate on a deep level the mask of courtesy slowly dropping over the three parts of the video essay. It gives the "I can clearly see you aren't getting the lesson" vibes
I have loved all of your presentations of Gods and Generals , as well as Gettysburg. I watch both movies every year over Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. Your insight is greatly appreciated. I still love the depth of Gods and Generals for its depiction of all the characters who played such significant roles. Its a shame the last movie was never produced.
@6:50 Thank you; This has bothered me about this movie so much! It is just absurd that the only example of racially insensitive language is used by a union officer, yet they have Stonewall Jackson talking about how slavery is going to disappear in the south. If you showed the film to someone who didn't know a single thing about the Civil War, they would assume the South is the side against slavery. It's just one example of how this film perpetuates the Lost Cause mythology; if it doesn't do so explicitly it does it in a more subtle, subdued fashion.
Exactly, I had ancestors from Massachusetts who were abolitionists, and fought in the Civil War for the Union(one of them died at the battle of Fredericksburg, and is buried in a mass grave there). The Lost Cause aspect of this movie gets under my skin, it's insulting for this film to twist things and make it seem like the South were on the right side of history in regards to slavery, when in reality the South was fighting to maintain an institution of slavery.
@@ReelHistory Thanks. That part of my family came over from Ireland during the potato famine. They settled in Fairhaven Massachusetts. The ones that fought in the Civil War were Father and Son, both with the same name, John Bryant(the Son was named John I. Bryant), the Father was killed at Fredericksburg, while the Son survived for many years after the war, and was a member of the Grand Army of the Republic(GAR) for decades, I have a picture of him in his GAR uniform.
@@stefanoliveira8718you’re so wrong. Abolitionists readily joined in to fight against slavery and pushed that narrative into the mainstream but it didn’t become the cause until the emancipation which was useless by the way. It was actually more of a signal to Europe. It wasn’t law and couldn’t be enforced in the north because they didn’t have slaves and they had no power over the south and it didn’t even free slaves in border states. But it pushed the narrative more to slavery, which McClellan especially hated. These are facts. Facts don’t fit neatly into spheres of thought. Nothing about the civil war was black and white, or should I say blue and gray
The thing that the filmmakers didn't understand is that the lost cause myth Confederates can't be sold as the good guys no matter how hard you try. However they make awesome bad guys . Also there is plenty of room to make stories about the moral complexity of characters like Jackson and Lee . But you can't sell the lost cause and gloss over slavery like it wasn't the cause that motivated the Confederates.
How glad I am that I stumbled over this channel! I love those countless little details that you're presenting in your breakdowns. The ACW is one of my favorite eras in history but being from Germany I've always had difficulties, especially in the pre-Internet age, getting my hands on good and detailed material about it. My first description of the battle of Gettysburg was the manual of a video game, watching the movie the movie 'Gettysburg' back in the mid-90s was the first time I ever got into contact with the topic on a larger scale. Thanks especially for shortly covering the fate of the unfortunate XI. Corps. Ever since I first read about it, I had had the impression that these men had served as scapegoats and that it was not the common soldiers's fault that they were deployed in theses positions from which they could be driven out so easily.
James Longstreet lost three children to Scarlet Fever in January, 63'. His staff noted how he changed after that and became more melancholy. His headquarters used to be more upbeat, but all that changed afterwards.
@@ReelHistory I am a bit biased I can't lie. Your series on the movie motivated me to buy and read Grant by Ron Chernow and I'm loving it. Grant is way more impressive then I thought.
@@ReelHistory when you mentioned the use of railroads for moving troops, I though of Longstreet’s post-Gettysburg move down to Georgia prior to Chickamauga (which might be my favorite ACW story).
I enjoyed your three part breakdown of Gods and Generals and agree with you about the film being a missed opportunity. I remember looking forward to seeing the film when it was first released and was especially disappointed to see Hancock's story arc from the novel get pretty much ignored. Also, I would have ended the film with Lee's army crossing the Potomac on their way to Pennsylvania rather than Jackson's memorial service.
22:30 That reminds me of the time I visited the battlefield of Culloden in Scotland, fought between the Jacobites and the British government forces. A tour guide said that a lot of people would come and proudly say that their ancestor fought with Bonnie Prince Charlie and they wanted to go and stand where their Ancestor would have been. They were then often surprised to find out that their Scottish ancestor most likely fought against him*. Also a good section of the battlefield is now private land taken up by a wooded plantation, so you can't get there without trespassing! *Due to their being Scottish regiments of the British Army present on the government side, several clans who stayed loyal to the government and troops raised in the Lowlands, there was actually more Scots fighting with the Hanovarian government forces than with the Young Pretender.
Yup it’s one of the things that people get wrong in Scottish history and even some of my fellow Scot’s do as well. So many treat it’s as a war between the Scot’s who supported the Bonnie Prince and the English who supported Orange. However, it was very much a Scottish civil war in so many ways. As it was actually very much highlander vs lowlander; Protestants vs Catholics; and amongst the clans those who believed Charlie was actually truly Scottish or more of a French Foreigner. So yeah, lots of people get it wrong when they come up here wondering if they’re ancestors fought against the army only to find themselves very much on its side. Same also happens when people come up and talk about the Scottish wars of independence and find that the lords and families they were under actually fought in Edwards Army on numerous occasions just due to the fact that your lord was one of Edwards knights/retainers so you didn’t get much say in who you fought for - tho medical politics is always an interesting thing when it comes to “who’s on who’s side”
@Reece Dignan absolutely, closest I've seen in modern times is that one of the last surviving German veterans of WW1 actually thought of himself as French*, so acquired French nationality after the war. When WW2 began he was called for service in the French army but soon sent back due to age and being married. His son was conscripted into the Waffen SS and killed in Normandy. After the war he went back to being French again. Luckily after that France and Germany didn't go back to war for the rest of his life, so he got to stay French! *He was from Colmar in Alsace Lorraine which Germany acquired from France after the Franco Prussian war.
Another theory of how Jackson got pneumonia is that in the records it stated he had a cough and sore throat from sleeping on the ground the morning he was shot. It could be that little cold caused his pneumonia to occur days later. The doctors at the time felt he should have recovered from the amputation because it was an amputation they have done on other men successfully.
You don't get a cold from sleeping on the ground as such. Although hypothermia might make it easier for certain germs to colonize. It's much more likely he punctured a lung or a secondary infection from amputation.
@@Emanon... : three things that I need to be said, one this is a theory that proposed how he caught pneumonia. The second is it is not my opinion but a surgeon who wrote a book about generals and their wounds. The third item is if they operate within the first 24 hours there is a 90% recovery of the wound. So your idea of secondary infection is wrong.
I don't care what everyone says, but Stephen Lang was perfect for the role of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, even though he was too old for the role, but he’s still the best! He previously portrayed George Pickett in Gettysburg (1993).
@@StephenLuke, I actually worked with him on the documentary "The Gettysburg Story" for a bit. A very nice man. He deserved better in this movie. Jared
The most provocative comment you made during your trilogy was the fact that there's a Director's Cut of this movie. Good grief! If there's one movie that doesn't warrant a longer version it's this one. I enjoyed your commentary throughout the three episodes which made the experience of seeing this cinematic failure much more tolerable. I especially enjoyed your unexpected interjection of the clips from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Unfortunately I was taking a sip of an adult beverage when the first one appeared and nearly choked to death! The "Gods and Generals" scene that preceded that first Python reference, the male and female performers doing a wretched job of lip-syncing "The Bonnie Blue Flag," was even longer for me because I was a Background Artist (not an "extra" thank you very much) during the filming. I had to endure that cheesy act three or four times, clapping vigorously and smiling, as though I was seeing some first rate entertainment. It was anything but. When I first saw this film at the movie theater two immediate thoughts came to mind. The first was why did Ron Maxwell use those titles identifying officers and regiments that had nothing to do with the main story? Those popped up throughout the film, if memory serves. Was this a theatrical movie or a film intended for high school history classes? My second observation was that few of the characters actually spoke real dialogue, but rather delivered a series of stilted speeches. Granted, "Gettysburg" included several speeches (Chamberlain, Kilrain, Buford, etc.) but they fit into the context of the story. The one instance that really stuck out in "Gods and Generals" was Chamberlain's recitation of Shakespeare during the Battle of Fredericksburg. It was at that point during the movie that I began to glance at my watch at regular intervals. All in all, a first rate review of a third rate movie. It's a shame the talents of Duvall, Lang, Daniels and the others were totally wasted. Seriously, there's really a Director's Cut?
@@ReelHistory It is. But its failure to bring in the big box office bucks is what sank Kubrick's Napoleon biopic. But, supposedly, Spielberg has thrown his weight behind a Napoleon miniseries, in another homage to his late friend. So we might be spoiled for choice soon, between that and Ridley Scott's film.
“Gods and Generals was a movie that wasn’t sure what it wanted to be and that tried to do too much. It suffered from delusions of grandeur.” I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of this film, including its extended edition. Aloha 😊🍿🤙🏼👏🏼
Wow I’m the 1000th like for this video 🎉. I worked on this movie not as a reenactor but in the Looping group. In fact I was the Historical Consultant for the looping of the movie. Brian Pohanka referred the production to me. We spent about a month looping this movie. The part where Jackson gets shot by his own troops, that was my researching for looping of those voices. Your compliment in this video made it all worthwhile.
I just found your channel and i really enjoyed this little series you did. I like Gods and Generals, but not as much as Gettysburg (I haven't watched that video yet). I found your information very insightful, and I thank you for the hard work that you put in your videos.
I lost all respect for the civil war historians that took part in this movie. I can no longer view their materials or works as credible. It is a shame those historians promoted this southern propaganda movie.
anyone who has not screamed in monty python accent "get on with it!" at least a dozen times while watching this abomination of a movie is lying. great review!
The reenactor angle; I participated in the September 2001 portion of filming as a "background artist." You are correct about the donation, although i never heard if there was follow-through. Everyone went through makeup, mostly they covered us with "Fuller's earth", to make us dirty for the camera.
i know it's not perfect...but Lang's work as Jackson really captured his manic and fanatical religious almost crusader views of warm and i wish he had been in a better movie OMG THAT IS SCOTT COOPER as for Jackson, i don't see him living through the war no matter what, he was too often right in the hottest parts and luck finally ran out, he also rejected entrenched warfare, to the negative of the army. even at Fredrickburg he had his men exposed. "his death was the greatest thing for his legacy and career"
Not withstanding it's many flaws what I like about this film is this: many battle scenes in Hollywood show historical battles as just a massive melee of individual combats, perhaps after a token opening showing lines of men losing cohesion as they charge the enemy who in turn are charging in the same manner. Such scenes create a myth that those battles are won by individual skill and valour rather than tactics or strategy. Sure, I understand the driving logic for the director - you want to focus on the hero and demonstrate his prowess. However in doing so we lose sight of why an army seeks to "turn the flank" or how a small disciplined army really did defeat a vastly larger less disciplined one. So in the case of Chancellorsville we do see how turning the flank makes a difference even though the lack of trees detracts from the actuality.
Another great review of a Civil War movie. You are correct in your opinion of the complete movie as not a very good one watched as a whole. As I taught my High School history classes I found its value when used as parts. It is a good tool to use when talking of specific parts of the war. Thanks for the review!
Very solid historical review painting out accuracies alongside the inaccuracies of this film. Regardless to what is said about the film, Stephen Lang nailed the role of Jackson. I look forward to watching more of these. I've always enjoyed Gary Gallagher as my Civil War historian, so I look forward to your take.
I think you were too kind to the film. You are absolutely right that the film tried to do way too much in the limited time and budget available. Ignoring the lopsided representation in the film or the dabbling in the 'Lost Cause' myth was bad enough but overloading the film with some pretty sappy sentimental drivel just made the entire film a slanted pro South mess. The biggest problem with the film was that it concentrated on two 'main' characters that had no real connection to each other. Stonewall Jackson and Lawrence Chamberlain were interesting in and of their own right but neither of them really squared off against each other. Jackson was a Division commander and later Corps commander during the period covered and Chamberlain was only a Regimental Commander before Gettysburg. They would have been better off concentrating on one or the other. Trying to tie in all of these other commanders, while minimizing many important leaders, especially on the Northern side, would have made for a much better film. Instead it was Confederate centered and presented them as the more important actors on the stage that was the first half of the Civil War. The best thing that could have been done was concentrate on two major commanders from the period. I think Lee vs McClelland from the second part of the Peninsula campaign to Antietam would have been a great comparison between the two men that fought in some pretty rough battles. Lee was bold, almost to the point of being dangerous while McClelland created a fantastic army but was afraid to use it. It would have been a good comparison between two styles of leadership. You could still have Stonewall Jackson involved (McClelland and Jackson went to West Point together) along with maybe Joseph Hooker, a pretty aggressive commander and, in my opinion, a better commander than he is remembered today. This would have been much more interesting and a nice comparison between four of the major leader in the mid part of the Civil War.
McClelland is actually a fairly interesting character from a film perspective. He is bright, but also vain and pompous. He absolutely saved the Army of the Potomac by organizing it and training it properly, giving it discipline. But simultaneously always built up the Confederates numbers to be far greater than they were or even reasonably expected to be. He did a magnificent job in building up the defenses of Washington D.C. The men actually loved him but the officers surely didn't. He was the anti-Lee in many ways because he could not bring himself to "destroy the thing he loved". The slight tactical loses, and oddly enough their biggest early victory at Malvern Hill, suffered by Little Mac unnerved him. Both Little Mac and Joe Hooker could have been interesting characters to focus on. Hooker was an otherwise competent general who somehow completely froze during the most critical period in his military career.
Yeah spot on comment. I simply cannot bring myself to find much to like in this muddled debacle of a film. The movie propagates so many myths that to me it is not just bad as a movie but harmful to historical accuracy. The subtitle to this film might as well have been "The sanctification of Stonewall Jackson: Patron Saint of The Confederacy".
I was an extra in the Bull Run (portrayed a Union soldier) and Chancellorsville (Confederate soldier) battle scenes, and was really looking forward to seeing the movie when it aired in Richmond. SO disappointing. As you said, it tried to do too much and so did none of it well.
@@ReelHistory - Sure! As was said during this movie review, the three lines of Confederate soldiers charging at the Battle of Chancellorsville were actually the same reenactors charging three times (I was one of them). To designate the different Divisions, the prop people wanted to change the flags that the color bearers were carrying. A prop guy went up to a reenactor, reached for his flag, and the guy FLIPPED. “NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE THIS FLAG FROM MY HANDS!” We we’re all like… Dude, chill. Ha!
This movie is a real leaden turkey to be sure. Turner just wanted to break even with the budget of this film, then we would have gotten the film version of the Last Full Measure, but it was not to be. One rumor surrounding the casting of the proposed Last Full Measure film: Maxwell wanted Tom Selleck, Magnum P.I. himself, to portray Gen. U.S. Grant.
I think a more interesting hypothetical than “What if Jackson hadn’t died at Chancellorsville?” is “What if Lee were facing Grant rather than Hooker at Chancellorsville?” Given Grant’s tenacity at the relatively similar Battle of Shiloh, I suspect he would have achieved a strategic victory against Lee, aggressively counter-attacking at first light on May 3rd following Jackson’s flanking maneuver on the 2nd. Grant would have then continued on toward Richmond much as he did after The Battle of the Wilderness on virtually the same ground a year later (with a smaller army than that possessed by Hooker), essentially fast-forwarding the onset of the Petersburg siege and thereby the end of the war in Virginia by a full year. (Granted, if Grant were in Virginia in 1865, that would raise concerns about the success of the Vicksburg campaign in the west.)
I was seven when my family and I watched Gettysburg at our local cinema, what a long, but glorious experience that was. We were shocked, yet intrigued that another big budget Civil War movie was going to be released, and that it was going to be a prequel to Gettysburg. We had probably seen Gettysburg 100+ times by 2003. We were shocked to say the least at Gods and Generals. What was this, a Confederate propaganda film? Where was the equal representation on the warning sides, and the main battle they we’re focusing on??? We witnessed two families literally get up and walk out of the theater because of what they we’re watching. It’s a huge same the film was created the way it was. Due to its lackluster performance, we Civil War enthusiasts will most likely never get another big budget movie again.
Another book well worth reading, though not depicted in the film or the book, Robert Tanner's Stonewall in the Valley. If ever there was a military moment that needed to be made into a film, it's Jackson's brilliant Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862.
The movie was meant to push the lost cause myth and use violent romanticism to glorify and diefy Jackson. Its obnoxiously long and as you stated 'missed opportunity'
As a kid I encountered a young man who was deaf due to his bout with measles. At another time I saw a United States Army Lieutenant who had no body hair. I do not remember what I was told caused that condition. Both of these would have been in the 1950s so even at this late date many folk were stickered with diseases that we give little attention today.
Small nitpick, the movie says AP hill was a brigadier general, but he was a major general. He'd been in command of a division for over a year at this point and wasnt a replacement commander like colston or rodes who were still BG waiting on their 2nd star
If true then they need to change the sign on I-95. The last time I drove past, I believe it was still called "Stonewall Jackson Shrine." Will look again the next time I drive by in May.
Excellent analysis of this film. I have subscribed and will be going through your back catalog. I am happy to see a critical voice on this film, especially with historical information to back that criticism. Now, it's been a long time since I've seen this movie and admittedly I have yet to read the book(honestly the movie put me off of it, but your endorsement will have me reconsider), but does it seem the Maryland campaign and the battle of Antietam seem to be ignored? If this was a balanced study of those years you can't ignore those events. Also, anytime you can seamlessly incorporate Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail it is most appreciated!
I'd be really interested to hear your take on Raiders of the Lost Ark, not for the real life history but because I really want to know how accurate Indiana Jones as a History Professor actually is.
You missed a chance to use "Run away!, Run away" when the rebels came out of the woods... 😂 Has anyone tried to re-edit this movie I wonder, besides the extended version?
Thanks for pointing out that Jackson's little amiga did die and he was so broken up by her death; and sadly her father will die nearby in Culpepper VA months later
I’m not a historian, but I found this movie interesting because I’ve been raised in Indiana. I’ve never really seen a movie about the South’s perspective on the Civil War. The usual suspects of slavery and autonomy are always brought up in any conversation about the war. I know maintaining the institution of slavery was a major war aim for the Confederacy. I didn’t fully realize until you read some documents just how important this was to the agrarian south. While you make a clear case for the south’s maintain-slavery war aims, the average soldier may not have been fighting for some rich plantation owner. The southern population has a stubborn streak of independence, a tendency for people to “stay in their lane”, so to speak. I think they really did feel someone far away, like Lincoln, for example shouldn’t meddle in the lives of the southern states. This was an era across the country of States Rights above a Central Government. Maybe they fought for the right to pursue their own course and not have it dictated by a centralized government. Especially a centralized northern government. I want to be very clear. In no way do I feel the Confederacy was just or morally right in maintaining the institution of slavery. Lincoln was 100% justified in putting The Emancipation Proclamation in effect for everyone. Slaves were treated brutally, and who cares how nice you were to a slave. They’re still NOT free to choose their own direction in life. Property is all they were in southern society. I’m merely saying not every Southern Soldier was fighting for slavery any more than every Union soldier saw emancipation of the slaves as a good thing. In the end, the moral thing to do won out and we ended the awful institution of slavery in the United States. The south still couldn’t come to grips with their defeat and took it out on the African population. Jim Crow sound familiar?
A movie so bloated that its failures ended a 'boom' in Civil War movies that started with Glory (1989). I think Lincoln (2012) is the lone mainstream success since. @Reel History, what do you feel is tin inherent failure of recent American Civil War films and what would be your dream story of the war you'd like told in a motion picture?
I made the exact argument in class the other night. Gods and Generals killed the genre of the Civil War movie. I would love to see a "Band of Brothers" style miniseries on the Iron Brigade or a sequel to Glory.
@@ReelHistory I think a series on Rufus Dawes would be fantastic. His rise from Captain of Co K in the 6th Wisconsin all the way up to Colonel (eventually BV Brigadier General of Volunteers) Along with his growing survivors guilt and PTSD. His letters home to his sister and eventual wife make for some amazing and heart breaking reading.
@@bjorns131stpa2, my old boss at Gettysburg--historian Scott Hartwig--is a big fan and expert on Dawes. His admiration rubbed off on me. I have students read some of Dawes in my Gettysburg class.
So... what you're saying is... don't bother watching this film, just watch Gettysburg again? Noted. Thanks for the warning. I have seen Gettysburg several times and always enjoy it, except for Fremantle - the Coldstream Guards officer - that was just cringe-making! Terrific breakdown. Looking forward to part 1 of the next project!
@@Lonovavir - similar relationship with A Bridge Too Far. After doing a scene by scene analysis of the film, I came out with a figure just a shade over 50% historically accurate in terms of screen time. It was actually worse than I thought.
Chancellorsville was an iconic battle, but from a strategic and historic view, the only real thing it did accomplish was perhaps shorten the war due to the high confederate casualties that couldn't easily be replaced.
still remember that tiny little article that appeared about six months later in the back pages informing us they were removing the missiles in Turkey because they were "obsolete".....yeah, right....
Hey Mr Frederick, could you guys possibly do a breakdown of Mississippi Burning? It’s a really well made movie with a good cast and well put together story. Even if it is not so accurate at times. Was suggested it by my history teacher and thought it would make a great fit for your channel. Thanks Ben P.S. another more light hearted film set in that era that would make a great review is American graffiti. It’s akin to 1960s dazed and confuse.
Words can't describe how disappointed I was with this movie. The book Gods and Generals started me on the path of learning about the Civil War. I was as excited to hear about this as I was to hear about the Fellowship of the Ring adaptation. My wife and I saw it together on our first date, and looking back on it its a small miracle we ever had a second one. I'm sure I pissed more than one moviegoer off at my barely-under-my-breath comments about inaccuracies and fabrications. And I'm pretty sure I said the line "GET ON WITH IT" more than once. And as a complete kick in the head, my favorite character in the book, General Hancock, is downgraded to a fraggin cameo!!!
I felt that this movie never really came close to the book. It could have been called Stonewall since this is who it is generally about. The book was about several Generals not just one.
If I'd made the movie, I'd start with Lee being offered the job, gut the prayer scenes/rebel enlisted men scenes/stuff with Jackson with his wife. Then have Hancock on the peninsula and Antietam. Would it be long yes, but more focused on the actual story.
That house you are taking about at the 13 minute mark looks a lot like the house that was used to film a short story about Lighthorse Harry and Robert E's mother being mistaken for dead and nearly buried alive. This was a segment on one of my favorite TV shows, Beyond Belief Fact or Fiction. It was revealed at the end of the story to be a true story.
How about looking at a couple of British War movies, specifically Battle of Britain from 1969and Battle of the River Plate, unsure of date. Others worthy of consideration are The Cruel Sea and Sink the Bismarck.
@Reel History one of my in laws served on a British cruiser during ww2 that was used as a stand in for Graf Spee in that film for some scenes. Another ship he served in was a converted passenger ship which was later used as a stand in for Titanic in some scenes from A Night to Remember. He had a heck of a wartime service record. My father in law has a photo album full of interesting pictures
@@ReelHistory good to know. BTW, Dunkirk, the latest movie(Guy Ritchie I think) is not in my opinion the best movie depiction of those events, the earlier movie of the same title, starring John Mills tells the story much better, in my opinion of course.
What about non-American films? Das Boot, Downfall and Stalingrad (the German 1993 film) are good as are some Finnish films (Talvisota, Tali Ihantala and The Unknown Soldier).
I mentioned in the in each of these comments I've come to appreciate that this movie is not very good though some of the battle scenes are noteworthy. It definitely did a good job with the Chancellorsville battle scenes as well whoever did the score for this movie deserved something because that's some pretty epic music when the Confederates charge out. I don't know it's a bit over-the-top but you do remember it. Speaking of not too long after this movie came out and I saw it in theaters all four hours. It was you know a simpler time so it didn't bother me as much and I'd also just got done watching Lord of the Rings so long epic movies didn't bother me. Not long after all of this me and my family went to Virginia and I think it was 2006 or so and saw all of these battlefields that are featured in this movie and also we saw Monticello and Jamestown which was also very cool. I say all that to say that when you go to a lot of these battlefield it's just woods and marker where the trenches were when you actually see the physical sites where they allow you to go or where you're willing to walk without going on a major hike so aside from the visitor center who try to give you a good idea of how it all played out there really isn't a whole lot to go on. However, that's one thing I will give this movie is that it gives you a good idea of how these battles played out. This is definitely a movie that if you take the battle scenes in isolation it's not bad. However, with everything else it is definitely a great example of when historical accuracy is a bad thing like the Alexander movie.
I just recently watched this film for the 2nd(?) time and it's wild to me how it strays so far from its predecessor. I'm left wondering if Maxwell fell in love with Stephen Lang and it caused it's confederate slant.
I am a fan of this movie if for nothjng else putting this history on the big screen. I do agree however that the endless hammering hkme of Jacksons deep religious convictions could have been accomplished in 1 scene instead of 10. I appreciate that this movie was made more from the confederate perspective, yet it should have been more honest about the slavery angle as you have mentioned. Some of the ridiculous scenes particularly the one where ted turner makes an appeareance was a waste of at least 10 minutes. I this you did a good job in this review and i commend you for attempting to keep your obvious bias in check. Weel done!
I agreed with what you said about the movie. I had a lot of hope when I saw the movie but was disappointed in the film. It did have some great parts but overall I just wished it was done better. The other thing that I liked was the soundtrack. It's not as good as Gettysburg but it does have some great music that I listen to all of the time
Your comment about Jackson kissing his wife is more telling than you may even realize. There are numerous points (including in your previous breakdown where Jackson says he will have faith for his General) where a Calvinist who is closer to what Jackson appears to have been would call the movie out on it's misunderstanding of the theology.
Thank you for your review of this film, which has added a few items, and some notable book recommendations, to my knowledge. I find your remarks somewhat inconsistent, though. On one hand you deplore the focus on minutiae, but a few moments later you enthuse over the small details such as bullets passing through tents. Personally, I will take all the detail I can get, and then some. Were the film ten hours long, or a mini-series, I would watch it repeatedly - because, for all its faults, I have not seen it depicted better.
Okay, On my mother's Paternal side, Robert E Lee and I really are related. He is my 8th cousin, three times removed. My 10th great-grandparents are his 7th great-grandparents. Distant connection I know, but still connected. Lol! On my mother's Maternal side, I am distant cousins with Robert Duvall. Hope that gives him some kind of connection to General Lee.
Actually the impact of antibiotics on infant and childhood mortality pales in comparison to the availability of clean water and vaccines. Something to work into your lectures that address military and civilian casualties of the American Civil War. Your public health colleagues can steer you to the evidence on this.
@29:50 this is a great example of why movies often have to take liberties when telling a story based on real events. Real life is usually extremely dull compared to what we expect from movies. Not to suggest that filmmakers shouldn't try to be accurate, but they shouldn't do so to the extent that their movie is bloated and tedious.
True. In Braveheart for example I am glad they did the open field battle of Sterling in the movie instead of the bridge/swamp chokepoint battle it actually was.
@@ReelHistory Absolutely, but why? Maxwell and Turner stayed pretty close on Gettysburg. Love to see someone interview Ron Maxwell and ask that very question.
@@ReelHistory Sounds like maybe bring Ron on to discuss... I don't think he's overly busy ;-) Certainly if Jeff Shaara can stop by to chat, Ron should speak to this burning questions.
Its my guess that having Bud Richardson as an advisor skewed it towards having so much Jackson bio material in it.. Don't get me wrong I liked Richradson's Jackson bio more than Rebel Yell, but it was too much for one movie.
Funny how it seems to be missed that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave in the Union. MD was a slave-state, the Mason-Dixon line is its northern boundary. It only freed slaves in the states in rebellion. Seems to be an important fact to overlook when discussing such a historical document, doncha think.
It is something which is well known as the President would not have the legal authority to free any slave by executive order except in territory captured by the states in rebellion and under military governance. The Proclamation did get the ball rolling on making abolition a war aim and led to the eventual,passage of the 13th Amendment. This is not the "gotcha" point some think it is.
I think its really telling that the only racist lines in the script are put in the mouth of a northerner and you summer it up well. Yes many of not all northerners held this opinion, but to not have a single confederate use such terms is a deliberate and intentional twisting of history by the filmmakers
In reality, pretty much everyone would be using racial language
@@thomasgentry9624, probably!
@@thomasgentry9624 Ture
@thomas gentry. The movie Lincoln does a good job illustrating that many northerners were just as racist as many southerners
Atun-Shei brought the same point up in why this film sucks and is Neo-Confederate propaganda
I just want to say thank you for the brilliant use of Monty Python and the Holy Grail
We really enjoyed it ourselves!
@@ReelHistory "GET ON WITH IT" (in the voice of God)
@@williamnicks2148 if only Stonewall Jackson was armed with the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch. He could've lobbest it at his foes, who, being naughty in the eyes of the Lord, shall have snuffed it.
@@williamnicks2148 Or Graham Chapman's British colonel saying "G.o.w.i.," very authoritatively!
@@cleverusername9369, tis but a scratch!
Literally laughed out loud at the intro. My wife heard and came and checked on me, so I showed her the intro then SHE laughed. She went and got our dog and brought her in to watch the intro. Dog did not laugh.
Conclusion: My dog is a Lost Causer...
Seriously, though. True story, minus the dog part. LOVE your channel!
LOL. One of the best comments we've had.
I always say this to Lost Causers when they bring up Sherman:
Well, why did you make Georgia so flammable then?
I appreciate on a deep level the mask of courtesy slowly dropping over the three parts of the video essay. It gives the "I can clearly see you aren't getting the lesson" vibes
I have loved all of your presentations of Gods and Generals , as well as Gettysburg. I watch both movies every year over Memorial Day and the Fourth of July. Your insight is greatly appreciated. I still love the depth of Gods and Generals for its depiction of all the characters who played such significant roles. Its a shame the last movie was never produced.
@6:50 Thank you; This has bothered me about this movie so much! It is just absurd that the only example of racially insensitive language is used by a union officer, yet they have Stonewall Jackson talking about how slavery is going to disappear in the south. If you showed the film to someone who didn't know a single thing about the Civil War, they would assume the South is the side against slavery. It's just one example of how this film perpetuates the Lost Cause mythology; if it doesn't do so explicitly it does it in a more subtle, subdued fashion.
Exactly, I had ancestors from Massachusetts who were abolitionists, and fought in the Civil War for the Union(one of them died at the battle of Fredericksburg, and is buried in a mass grave there). The Lost Cause aspect of this movie gets under my skin, it's insulting for this film to twist things and make it seem like the South were on the right side of history in regards to slavery, when in reality the South was fighting to maintain an institution of slavery.
@@stefanoliveira8718, respects to your ancestors!
@@ReelHistory Thanks. That part of my family came over from Ireland during the potato famine. They settled in Fairhaven Massachusetts. The ones that fought in the Civil War were Father and Son, both with the same name, John Bryant(the Son was named John I. Bryant), the Father was killed at Fredericksburg, while the Son survived for many years after the war, and was a member of the Grand Army of the Republic(GAR) for decades, I have a picture of him in his GAR uniform.
@@stefanoliveira8718you’re so wrong. Abolitionists readily joined in to fight against slavery and pushed that narrative into the mainstream but it didn’t become the cause until the emancipation which was useless by the way. It was actually more of a signal to Europe. It wasn’t law and couldn’t be enforced in the north because they didn’t have slaves and they had no power over the south and it didn’t even free slaves in border states. But it pushed the narrative more to slavery, which McClellan especially hated. These are facts. Facts don’t fit neatly into spheres of thought. Nothing about the civil war was black and white, or should I say blue and gray
The thing that the filmmakers didn't understand is that the lost cause myth Confederates can't be sold as the good guys no matter how hard you try. However they make awesome bad guys . Also there is plenty of room to make stories about the moral complexity of characters like Jackson and Lee . But you can't sell the lost cause and gloss over slavery like it wasn't the cause that motivated the Confederates.
This channel is pure gold ❤❤❤👍
Thanks!
How glad I am that I stumbled over this channel! I love those countless little details that you're presenting in your breakdowns. The ACW is one of my favorite eras in history but being from Germany I've always had difficulties, especially in the pre-Internet age, getting my hands on good and detailed material about it. My first description of the battle of Gettysburg was the manual of a video game, watching the movie the movie 'Gettysburg' back in the mid-90s was the first time I ever got into contact with the topic on a larger scale.
Thanks especially for shortly covering the fate of the unfortunate XI. Corps. Ever since I first read about it, I had had the impression that these men had served as scapegoats and that it was not the common soldiers's fault that they were deployed in theses positions from which they could be driven out so easily.
James Longstreet lost three children to Scarlet Fever in January, 63'. His staff noted how he changed after that and became more melancholy. His headquarters used to be more upbeat, but all that changed afterwards.
@23:28 That was historically accurate. JEB Stuart was known to wear disappearing gloves when pointing things out on a map.
😂
That opening was amazing!
Doesn't matter if Jackson lived. Grant and Sherman were still coming.
Thomas too, slowly but you’re not forcing him back when he makes a stand.
@@HaloFTW55, a film about Thomas would be great. We vote for Russell Crowe.
@@ReelHistory I am a bit biased I can't lie. Your series on the movie motivated me to buy and read Grant by Ron Chernow and I'm loving it. Grant is way more impressive then I thought.
@@Billchungus-e3e, he is finally getting the recognition he deserves.
@@ReelHistory when you mentioned the use of railroads for moving troops, I though of Longstreet’s post-Gettysburg move down to Georgia prior to Chickamauga (which might be my favorite ACW story).
I enjoyed your three part breakdown of Gods and Generals and agree with you about the film being a missed opportunity. I remember looking forward to seeing the film when it was first released and was especially disappointed to see Hancock's story arc from the novel get pretty much ignored. Also, I would have ended the film with Lee's army crossing the Potomac on their way to Pennsylvania rather than Jackson's memorial service.
22:30 That reminds me of the time I visited the battlefield of Culloden in Scotland, fought between the Jacobites and the British government forces. A tour guide said that a lot of people would come and proudly say that their ancestor fought with Bonnie Prince Charlie and they wanted to go and stand where their Ancestor would have been. They were then often surprised to find out that their Scottish ancestor most likely fought against him*. Also a good section of the battlefield is now private land taken up by a wooded plantation, so you can't get there without trespassing!
*Due to their being Scottish regiments of the British Army present on the government side, several clans who stayed loyal to the government and troops raised in the Lowlands, there was actually more Scots fighting with the Hanovarian government forces than with the Young Pretender.
Yup it’s one of the things that people get wrong in Scottish history and even some of my fellow Scot’s do as well.
So many treat it’s as a war between the Scot’s who supported the Bonnie Prince and the English who supported Orange.
However, it was very much a Scottish civil war in so many ways. As it was actually very much highlander vs lowlander; Protestants vs Catholics; and amongst the clans those who believed Charlie was actually truly Scottish or more of a French Foreigner.
So yeah, lots of people get it wrong when they come up here wondering if they’re ancestors fought against the army only to find themselves very much on its side.
Same also happens when people come up and talk about the Scottish wars of independence and find that the lords and families they were under actually fought in Edwards Army on numerous occasions just due to the fact that your lord was one of Edwards knights/retainers so you didn’t get much say in who you fought for - tho medical politics is always an interesting thing when it comes to “who’s on who’s side”
@Reece Dignan absolutely, closest I've seen in modern times is that one of the last surviving German veterans of WW1 actually thought of himself as French*, so acquired French nationality after the war. When WW2 began he was called for service in the French army but soon sent back due to age and being married. His son was conscripted into the Waffen SS and killed in Normandy. After the war he went back to being French again.
Luckily after that France and Germany didn't go back to war for the rest of his life, so he got to stay French!
*He was from Colmar in Alsace Lorraine which Germany acquired from France after the Franco Prussian war.
And the battle actually crushed the power the laird's had over the poor Highlanders lives, freeing many of them to move to America
a"Braveheart" type charge doesn't work too well against cannon!...
Another theory of how Jackson got pneumonia is that in the records it stated he had a cough and sore throat from sleeping on the ground the morning he was shot. It could be that little cold caused his pneumonia to occur days later. The doctors at the time felt he should have recovered from the amputation because it was an amputation they have done on other men successfully.
You don't get a cold from sleeping on the ground as such.
Although hypothermia might make it easier for certain germs to colonize.
It's much more likely he punctured a lung or a secondary infection from amputation.
@@Emanon... : three things that I need to be said, one this is a theory that proposed how he caught pneumonia. The second is it is not my opinion but a surgeon who wrote a book about generals and their wounds. The third item is if they operate within the first 24 hours there is a 90% recovery of the wound. So your idea of secondary infection is wrong.
Been refreshing daily waiting for this!!
Thanks for visiting!
I don't care what everyone says, but Stephen Lang was perfect for the role of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, even though he was too old for the role, but he’s still the best! He previously portrayed George Pickett in Gettysburg (1993).
Lang's performance was one of the few redeeming qualities of the movie. He's good in everything he's been in.
Agreed. He made the most of it.
@@ReelHistoryHe also portrayed Ike Clanton in Tombstone (1993), and Charles B. Winstead in Public Enemies (2009)
@@StephenLuke, I actually worked with him on the documentary "The Gettysburg Story" for a bit. A very nice man. He deserved better in this movie.
Jared
@@ReelHistoryReally?!?!?! That's so cool! I watched your Gettysburg (1993) TCM video yesterday and you were great! Thank you!
The comparison with The Patriot is very apt. Good review and very fun watch.
Thank you!
The most provocative comment you made during your trilogy was the fact that there's a Director's Cut of this movie. Good grief! If there's one movie that doesn't warrant a longer version it's this one. I enjoyed your commentary throughout the three episodes which made the experience of seeing this cinematic failure much more tolerable.
I especially enjoyed your unexpected interjection of the clips from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail." Unfortunately I was taking a sip of an adult beverage when the first one appeared and nearly choked to death! The "Gods and Generals" scene that preceded that first Python reference, the male and female performers doing a wretched job of lip-syncing "The Bonnie Blue Flag," was even longer for me because I was a Background Artist (not an "extra" thank you very much) during the filming. I had to endure that cheesy act three or four times, clapping vigorously and smiling, as though I was seeing some first rate entertainment. It was anything but.
When I first saw this film at the movie theater two immediate thoughts came to mind. The first was why did Ron Maxwell use those titles identifying officers and regiments that had nothing to do with the main story? Those popped up throughout the film, if memory serves. Was this a theatrical movie or a film intended for high school history classes? My second observation was that few of the characters actually spoke real dialogue, but rather delivered a series of stilted speeches. Granted, "Gettysburg" included several speeches (Chamberlain, Kilrain, Buford, etc.) but they fit into the context of the story. The one instance that really stuck out in "Gods and Generals" was Chamberlain's recitation of Shakespeare during the Battle of Fredericksburg. It was at that point during the movie that I began to glance at my watch at regular intervals.
All in all, a first rate review of a third rate movie. It's a shame the talents of Duvall, Lang, Daniels and the others were totally wasted.
Seriously, there's really a Director's Cut?
Yes. The director's cut includes the Battle of Antietam and I think 2nd Manassas.
The director's cut should result in creating mini series, not to extend along ass movie as this one.
I have often said that G&G was the sort of movie that could kill an entire genre. And very likely did.
So sadly true.
Just like Waterloo. Except Waterloo is enjoyable to sit through.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher, Waterloo is so impressive.
@@ReelHistory
It is. But its failure to bring in the big box office bucks is what sank Kubrick's Napoleon biopic.
But, supposedly, Spielberg has thrown his weight behind a Napoleon miniseries, in another homage to his late friend. So we might be spoiled for choice soon, between that and Ridley Scott's film.
@@eldorados_lost_searcher, fascinating!
love your videos, new sub, greetings from Spain.
Welcome aboard!
“Gods and Generals was a movie that wasn’t sure what it wanted to be and that tried to do too much. It suffered from delusions of grandeur.”
I think that’s a pretty fair assessment of this film, including its extended edition.
Aloha 😊🍿🤙🏼👏🏼
Wow I’m the 1000th like for this video 🎉. I worked on this movie not as a reenactor but in the Looping group. In fact I was the Historical Consultant for the looping of the movie. Brian Pohanka referred the production to me. We spent about a month looping this movie. The part where Jackson gets shot by his own troops, that was my researching for looping of those voices. Your compliment in this video made it all worthwhile.
Thank you very much! Stay in touch via email. We love doing oddball interviews with people who worked on historic films!
Best channel out there
Thanks!
Really enjoying your breakdown of historical movies
I just found your channel and i really enjoyed this little series you did. I like Gods and Generals, but not as much as Gettysburg (I haven't watched that video yet). I found your information very insightful, and I thank you for the hard work that you put in your videos.
Thank you for visiting. Be sure to watch our Gettysburg videos as well!
@@ReelHistory I plan on it!
I lost all respect for the civil war historians that took part in this movie. I can no longer view their materials or works as credible. It is a shame those historians promoted this southern propaganda movie.
your coverage of the Battle of Chancellorsville is very intriguing
anyone who has not screamed in monty python accent "get on with it!" at least a dozen times while watching this abomination of a movie is lying. great review!
Ha ha.
The American Civil War and Monty Python's Holy Grail was not a combination I ever expected.
We didn't expect it ourselves until we edited this!
Excellent review and analysis. Thanks!!
12:56 Good god, there's a longer version? 😂
Yes, an extended director's cut!
@@ReelHistory scary, you deserve a medal for getting through it
The reenactor angle; I participated in the September 2001 portion of filming as a "background artist." You are correct about the donation, although i never heard if there was follow-through. Everyone went through makeup, mostly they covered us with "Fuller's earth", to make us dirty for the camera.
Very good job editing this episode!
Do you plan on covering the cinematic depictions of the Alamo?
We do! We are actually fond of the Billy Bob Thornton version!
@@ReelHistory I also like that movie.
@@ricardoaguirre6126, stay tuned in the coming months!
I watched your vid on “Wicked Spring,” and then rewatched this. And yup, I can see the major difference.
Good analysis, Jared!
Aloha 😊🤙🏼👏🏼
i know it's not perfect...but Lang's work as Jackson really captured his manic and fanatical religious almost crusader views of warm and i wish he had been in a better movie
OMG THAT IS SCOTT COOPER
as for Jackson, i don't see him living through the war no matter what, he was too often right in the hottest parts and luck finally ran out, he also rejected entrenched warfare, to the negative of the army. even at Fredrickburg he had his men exposed. "his death was the greatest thing for his legacy and career"
Not withstanding it's many flaws what I like about this film is this: many battle scenes in Hollywood show historical battles as just a massive melee of individual combats, perhaps after a token opening showing lines of men losing cohesion as they charge the enemy who in turn are charging in the same manner. Such scenes create a myth that those battles are won by individual skill and valour rather than tactics or strategy. Sure, I understand the driving logic for the director - you want to focus on the hero and demonstrate his prowess. However in doing so we lose sight of why an army seeks to "turn the flank" or how a small disciplined army really did defeat a vastly larger less disciplined one.
So in the case of Chancellorsville we do see how turning the flank makes a difference even though the lack of trees detracts from the actuality.
Another great review of a Civil War movie. You are correct in your opinion of the complete movie as not a very good one watched as a whole. As I taught my High School history classes I found its value when used as parts. It is a good tool to use when talking of specific parts of the war. Thanks for the review!
Jared has used snippets of it in the classroom as well--parts of battle scenes that is.
Very solid historical review painting out accuracies alongside the inaccuracies of this film. Regardless to what is said about the film, Stephen Lang nailed the role of Jackson. I look forward to watching more of these. I've always enjoyed Gary Gallagher as my Civil War historian, so I look forward to your take.
I think you were too kind to the film.
You are absolutely right that the film tried to do way too much in the limited time and budget available. Ignoring the lopsided representation in the film or the dabbling in the 'Lost Cause' myth was bad enough but overloading the film with some pretty sappy sentimental drivel just made the entire film a slanted pro South mess.
The biggest problem with the film was that it concentrated on two 'main' characters that had no real connection to each other. Stonewall Jackson and Lawrence Chamberlain were interesting in and of their own right but neither of them really squared off against each other. Jackson was a Division commander and later Corps commander during the period covered and Chamberlain was only a Regimental Commander before Gettysburg. They would have been better off concentrating on one or the other. Trying to tie in all of these other commanders, while minimizing many important leaders, especially on the Northern side, would have made for a much better film. Instead it was Confederate centered and presented them as the more important actors on the stage that was the first half of the Civil War.
The best thing that could have been done was concentrate on two major commanders from the period. I think Lee vs McClelland from the second part of the Peninsula campaign to Antietam would have been a great comparison between the two men that fought in some pretty rough battles. Lee was bold, almost to the point of being dangerous while McClelland created a fantastic army but was afraid to use it. It would have been a good comparison between two styles of leadership. You could still have Stonewall Jackson involved (McClelland and Jackson went to West Point together) along with maybe Joseph Hooker, a pretty aggressive commander and, in my opinion, a better commander than he is remembered today.
This would have been much more interesting and a nice comparison between four of the major leader in the mid part of the Civil War.
McClelland is actually a fairly interesting character from a film perspective. He is bright, but also vain and pompous. He absolutely saved the Army of the Potomac by organizing it and training it properly, giving it discipline. But simultaneously always built up the Confederates numbers to be far greater than they were or even reasonably expected to be. He did a magnificent job in building up the defenses of Washington D.C. The men actually loved him but the officers surely didn't. He was the anti-Lee in many ways because he could not bring himself to "destroy the thing he loved". The slight tactical loses, and oddly enough their biggest early victory at Malvern Hill, suffered by Little Mac unnerved him. Both Little Mac and Joe Hooker could have been interesting characters to focus on. Hooker was an otherwise competent general who somehow completely froze during the most critical period in his military career.
Yeah spot on comment. I simply cannot bring myself to find much to like in this muddled debacle of a film. The movie propagates so many myths that to me it is not just bad as a movie but harmful to historical accuracy. The subtitle to this film might as well have been "The sanctification of Stonewall Jackson: Patron Saint of The Confederacy".
I hope to eventually see a breakdown on The Conspirator and Parkland. Those would be interesting films in my opinion.
Both very interesting and underrated films!
The Conspirator was obviously intended to make me think Mary Surratt was innocent, but I thought she was obviously guilty.
....and Dr. Mudd?....@@christophercarrier2902
I was an extra in the Bull Run (portrayed a Union soldier) and Chancellorsville (Confederate soldier) battle scenes, and was really looking forward to seeing the movie when it aired in Richmond.
SO disappointing. As you said, it tried to do too much and so did none of it well.
Any interesting stories from set to share?
@@ReelHistory - Sure! As was said during this movie review, the three lines of Confederate soldiers charging at the Battle of Chancellorsville were actually the same reenactors charging three times (I was one of them). To designate the different Divisions, the prop people wanted to change the flags that the color bearers were carrying. A prop guy went up to a reenactor, reached for his flag, and the guy FLIPPED. “NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE THIS FLAG FROM MY HANDS!”
We we’re all like… Dude, chill. Ha!
@@stevensimonson282, doesn't surprise us though!
This movie is a real leaden turkey to be sure. Turner just wanted to break even with the budget of this film, then we would have gotten the film version of the Last Full Measure, but it was not to be. One rumor surrounding the casting of the proposed Last Full Measure film: Maxwell wanted Tom Selleck, Magnum P.I. himself, to portray Gen. U.S. Grant.
get on with it! Great stuff.
With special regards from the Castle Anthrax!
I think a more interesting hypothetical than “What if Jackson hadn’t died at Chancellorsville?” is “What if Lee were facing Grant rather than Hooker at Chancellorsville?” Given Grant’s tenacity at the relatively similar Battle of Shiloh, I suspect he would have achieved a strategic victory against Lee, aggressively counter-attacking at first light on May 3rd following Jackson’s flanking maneuver on the 2nd. Grant would have then continued on toward Richmond much as he did after The Battle of the Wilderness on virtually the same ground a year later (with a smaller army than that possessed by Hooker), essentially fast-forwarding the onset of the Petersburg siege and thereby the end of the war in Virginia by a full year. (Granted, if Grant were in Virginia in 1865, that would raise concerns about the success of the Vicksburg campaign in the west.)
I was seven when my family and I watched Gettysburg at our local cinema, what a long, but glorious experience that was. We were shocked, yet intrigued that another big budget Civil War movie was going to be released, and that it was going to be a prequel to Gettysburg. We had probably seen Gettysburg 100+ times by 2003.
We were shocked to say the least at Gods and Generals. What was this, a Confederate propaganda film? Where was the equal representation on the warning sides, and the main battle they we’re focusing on??? We witnessed two families literally get up and walk out of the theater because of what they we’re watching. It’s a huge same the film was created the way it was. Due to its lackluster performance, we Civil War enthusiasts will most likely never get another big budget movie again.
It was most definitely a lost opportunity.
Not a good one anyway
Been looking forward to this!
Thanks for tuning in!
Another book well worth reading, though not depicted in the film or the book, Robert Tanner's Stonewall in the Valley. If ever there was a military moment that needed to be made into a film, it's Jackson's brilliant Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1862.
James Longstreet would get accidentally shot by his own men as well like a year later near the same location.
Ironic.
Lee was accidentally shot at by his own men during the Maryland Campaign as well.
Changing the subject but I heard your talk on USAHEC on Winters and Speirs. Good talk
Are you covering the even longer directors cut of the movie?
Only selectively! We generally stayed to the scenes of the theatrical version though.
It’s no longer called the stonewall Jackson’s shrine, it was changed in 2019 or 2020 to the stonewall Jackson’s death site
The movie was meant to push the lost cause myth and use violent romanticism to glorify and diefy Jackson. Its obnoxiously long and as you stated 'missed opportunity'
As a kid I encountered a young man who was deaf due to his bout with measles. At another time I saw a United States Army Lieutenant who had no body hair. I do not remember what I was told caused that condition. Both of these would have been in the 1950s so even at this late date many folk were stickered with diseases that we give little attention today.
Small nitpick, the movie says AP hill was a brigadier general, but he was a major general. He'd been in command of a division for over a year at this point and wasnt a replacement commander like colston or rodes who were still BG waiting on their 2nd star
Actually they have renamed the Stonewall Jackson Shrine to be called the Stonewall Jackson Death Site
Interesting! We were not aware!
If true then they need to change the sign on I-95. The last time I drove past, I believe it was still called "Stonewall Jackson Shrine." Will look again the next time I drive by in May.
Well the sign is property of the Commonwealth of Virginia, so it's a states' rights issue. 😂
Excellent analysis of this film. I have subscribed and will be going through your back catalog. I am happy to see a critical voice on this film, especially with historical information to back that criticism. Now, it's been a long time since I've seen this movie and admittedly I have yet to read the book(honestly the movie put me off of it, but your endorsement will have me reconsider), but does it seem the Maryland campaign and the battle of Antietam seem to be ignored? If this was a balanced study of those years you can't ignore those events. Also, anytime you can seamlessly incorporate Monty Python and the Quest for the Holy Grail it is most appreciated!
Thanks for visiting!
Antietam is featured in the director's cut but it is still the shortest battle depicted in the movie.
I'd be really interested to hear your take on Raiders of the Lost Ark, not for the real life history but because I really want to know how accurate Indiana Jones as a History Professor actually is.
No student has ever written messages to me on their eyelids, but we try to keep them engaged!
And Indy and I really really dislike Nazis.
@Reel History ah yes but what we really need to know is how many secret archaeological discoveries have you found and handed over to the government 🤔
You missed a chance to use "Run away!, Run away" when the rebels came out of the woods... 😂 Has anyone tried to re-edit this movie I wonder, besides the extended version?
Sounds like you volunteered.
@@Gravelgratious I wish I had the skill! You wouldn't want to see my edit!
Ooh. Good call!
The only slur used in Gettysburg was “darkie” and the characters who said it were Buster Kilrain and James Kemper
This was such a good reaction series to this sketchy movie. 😊
Thanks for pointing out that Jackson's little amiga did die and he was so broken up by her death; and sadly her father will die nearby in Culpepper VA months later
I’m not a historian, but I found this movie interesting because I’ve been raised in Indiana. I’ve never really seen a movie about the South’s perspective on the Civil War. The usual suspects of slavery and autonomy are always brought up in any conversation about the war. I know maintaining the institution of slavery was a major war aim for the Confederacy. I didn’t fully realize until you read some documents just how important this was to the agrarian south.
While you make a clear case for the south’s maintain-slavery war aims, the average soldier may not have been fighting for some rich plantation owner. The southern population has a stubborn streak of independence, a tendency for people to “stay in their lane”, so to speak. I think they really did feel someone far away, like Lincoln, for example shouldn’t meddle in the lives of the southern states. This was an era across the country of States Rights above a Central Government. Maybe they fought for the right to pursue their own course and not have it dictated by a centralized government. Especially a centralized northern government.
I want to be very clear. In no way do I feel the Confederacy was just or morally right in maintaining the institution of slavery. Lincoln was 100% justified in putting The Emancipation Proclamation in effect for everyone. Slaves were treated brutally, and who cares how nice you were to a slave. They’re still NOT free to choose their own direction in life. Property is all they were in southern society. I’m merely saying not every Southern Soldier was fighting for slavery any more than every Union soldier saw emancipation of the slaves as a good thing. In the end, the moral thing to do won out and we ended the awful institution of slavery in the United States. The south still couldn’t come to grips with their defeat and took it out on the African population. Jim Crow sound familiar?
A movie so bloated that its failures ended a 'boom' in Civil War movies that started with Glory (1989). I think Lincoln (2012) is the lone mainstream success since. @Reel History, what do you feel is tin inherent failure of recent American Civil War films and what would be your dream story of the war you'd like told in a motion picture?
I made the exact argument in class the other night. Gods and Generals killed the genre of the Civil War movie.
I would love to see a "Band of Brothers" style miniseries on the Iron Brigade or a sequel to Glory.
@@ReelHistory I think a series on Rufus Dawes would be fantastic. His rise from Captain of Co K in the 6th Wisconsin all the way up to Colonel (eventually BV Brigadier General of Volunteers) Along with his growing survivors guilt and PTSD. His letters home to his sister and eventual wife make for some amazing and heart breaking reading.
@@bjorns131stpa2, my old boss at Gettysburg--historian Scott Hartwig--is a big fan and expert on Dawes. His admiration rubbed off on me. I have students read some of Dawes in my Gettysburg class.
So... what you're saying is... don't bother watching this film, just watch Gettysburg again? Noted. Thanks for the warning. I have seen Gettysburg several times and always enjoy it, except for Fremantle - the Coldstream Guards officer - that was just cringe-making! Terrific breakdown. Looking forward to part 1 of the next project!
Lol you must be of great age and advanced years to have had the time to watch Gettysburg several times
@@cleverusername9369 - 6,000 years old, yes!
Thanks, as always, Dave!
The book is much better, I hate the film because I read the book. It's a huge oh no you didn't to mention this film at CW reenactments.
@@Lonovavir - similar relationship with A Bridge Too Far. After doing a scene by scene analysis of the film, I came out with a figure just a shade over 50% historically accurate in terms of screen time. It was actually worse than I thought.
Chancellorsville was an iconic battle, but from a strategic and historic view, the only real thing it did accomplish was perhaps shorten the war due to the high confederate casualties that couldn't easily be replaced.
I like your nuanced take on this movie! Overall it is not a great movie but there are a few things it did well
Cheers!
Would love to see you review 13 days!
still remember that tiny little article that appeared about six months later in the back pages informing us they were removing the missiles in Turkey because they were "obsolete".....yeah, right....
Hey Mr Frederick, could you guys possibly do a breakdown of Mississippi Burning? It’s a really well made movie with a good cast and well put together story. Even if it is not so accurate at times. Was suggested it by my history teacher and thought it would make a great fit for your channel.
Thanks
Ben
P.S. another more light hearted film set in that era that would make a great review is American graffiti. It’s akin to 1960s dazed and confuse.
Both good suggestions!
Saw this in the theater and didn't pay attention to the run time. I couldn't believe there was an intermission.
It was the only movie we've been to where there was an intermission.
Gettysburg had an intermission. My friend & I spoke to a prof and some of his students who were going to Gettysburg soon after. Good timing for them.
Words can't describe how disappointed I was with this movie. The book Gods and Generals started me on the path of learning about the Civil War. I was as excited to hear about this as I was to hear about the Fellowship of the Ring adaptation. My wife and I saw it together on our first date, and looking back on it its a small miracle we ever had a second one. I'm sure I pissed more than one moviegoer off at my barely-under-my-breath comments about inaccuracies and fabrications. And I'm pretty sure I said the line "GET ON WITH IT" more than once. And as a complete kick in the head, my favorite character in the book, General Hancock, is downgraded to a fraggin cameo!!!
The novel is truly excellent.
@@ReelHistory in case your interested, on our second date we saw Chicago. Needless to say it went MUCH better…
@@charlesgrybosky1916, cheers!
Why did this movie have to suck soooo bad?? Can we get a redo!?!
Unlikely sadly!
I felt that this movie never really came close to the book. It could have been called Stonewall since this is who it is generally about. The book was about several Generals not just one.
If I'd made the movie, I'd start with Lee being offered the job, gut the prayer scenes/rebel enlisted men scenes/stuff with Jackson with his wife. Then have Hancock on the peninsula and Antietam. Would it be long yes, but more focused on the actual story.
That house you are taking about at the 13 minute mark looks a lot like the house that was used to film a short story about Lighthorse Harry and Robert E's mother being mistaken for dead and nearly buried alive. This was a segment on one of my favorite TV shows, Beyond Belief Fact or Fiction. It was revealed at the end of the story to be a true story.
Interesting! Do you have a link?
I lol'd at 26:15
We do too!
How about looking at a couple of British War movies, specifically Battle of Britain from 1969and Battle of the River Plate, unsure of date. Others worthy of consideration are The Cruel Sea and Sink the Bismarck.
We have a few of those on our list!
@Reel History one of my in laws served on a British cruiser during ww2 that was used as a stand in for Graf Spee in that film for some scenes. Another ship he served in was a converted passenger ship which was later used as a stand in for Titanic in some scenes from A Night to Remember. He had a heck of a wartime service record. My father in law has a photo album full of interesting pictures
@@ReelHistory good to know. BTW, Dunkirk, the latest movie(Guy Ritchie I think) is not in my opinion the best movie depiction of those events, the earlier movie of the same title, starring John Mills tells the story much better, in my opinion of course.
@@davidclarke7122, that one is a classic!
What about non-American films? Das Boot, Downfall and Stalingrad (the German 1993 film) are good as are some Finnish films (Talvisota, Tali Ihantala and The Unknown Soldier).
I mentioned in the in each of these comments I've come to appreciate that this movie is not very good though some of the battle scenes are noteworthy. It definitely did a good job with the Chancellorsville battle scenes as well whoever did the score for this movie deserved something because that's some pretty epic music when the Confederates charge out. I don't know it's a bit over-the-top but you do remember it.
Speaking of not too long after this movie came out and I saw it in theaters all four hours. It was you know a simpler time so it didn't bother me as much and I'd also just got done watching Lord of the Rings so long epic movies didn't bother me. Not long after all of this me and my family went to Virginia and I think it was 2006 or so and saw all of these battlefields that are featured in this movie and also we saw Monticello and Jamestown which was also very cool.
I say all that to say that when you go to a lot of these battlefield it's just woods and marker where the trenches were when you actually see the physical sites where they allow you to go or where you're willing to walk without going on a major hike so aside from the visitor center who try to give you a good idea of how it all played out there really isn't a whole lot to go on. However, that's one thing I will give this movie is that it gives you a good idea of how these battles played out.
This is definitely a movie that if you take the battle scenes in isolation it's not bad. However, with everything else it is definitely a great example of when historical accuracy is a bad thing like the Alexander movie.
Well said!
When I saw this movie, I left confused. Not so with Gettysburg. Thanks.
I just recently watched this film for the 2nd(?) time and it's wild to me how it strays so far from its predecessor. I'm left wondering if Maxwell fell in love with Stephen Lang and it caused it's confederate slant.
Could you do the Roots 1977 miniseries? I would appreciate your insight.
I am a fan of this movie if for nothjng else putting this history on the big screen. I do agree however that the endless hammering hkme of Jacksons deep religious convictions could have been accomplished in 1 scene instead of 10. I appreciate that this movie was made more from the confederate perspective, yet it should have been more honest about the slavery angle as you have mentioned. Some of the ridiculous scenes particularly the one where ted turner makes an appeareance was a waste of at least 10 minutes. I this you did a good job in this review and i commend you for attempting to keep your obvious bias in check. Weel done!
Great video like always, could you do a take on the 1998 movie The Day Lincoln was shot.
That is a really good one! Jared has special hopes for it--possibly filming in DC someday.
Where's the part with the freedom papers
I agreed with what you said about the movie. I had a lot of hope when I saw the movie but was disappointed in the film. It did have some great parts but overall I just wished it was done better. The other thing that I liked was the soundtrack. It's not as good as Gettysburg but it does have some great music that I listen to all of the time
You are not alone in your thoughts!
Your comment about Jackson kissing his wife is more telling than you may even realize. There are numerous points (including in your previous breakdown where Jackson says he will have faith for his General) where a Calvinist who is closer to what Jackson appears to have been would call the movie out on it's misunderstanding of the theology.
Interesting point!
Thank you for your review of this film, which has added a few items, and some notable book recommendations, to my knowledge. I find your remarks somewhat inconsistent, though. On one hand you deplore the focus on minutiae, but a few moments later you enthuse over the small details such as bullets passing through tents. Personally, I will take all the detail I can get, and then some. Were the film ten hours long, or a mini-series, I would watch it repeatedly - because, for all its faults, I have not seen it depicted better.
jackson did have a lot of enemies in among people in his own army
Okay, On my mother's Paternal side, Robert E Lee and I really are related. He is my 8th cousin, three times removed. My 10th great-grandparents are his 7th great-grandparents. Distant connection I know, but still connected. Lol! On my mother's Maternal side, I am distant cousins with Robert Duvall. Hope that gives him some kind of connection to General Lee.
Jackson was at Antietam in September of 1862, but this book or movie seems to omit it. If I am right about, why did they omit it?
Actually the impact of antibiotics on infant and childhood mortality pales in comparison to the availability of clean water and vaccines. Something to work into your lectures that address military and civilian casualties of the American Civil War. Your public health colleagues can steer you to the evidence on this.
Cheers! I do in fact discuss this in the classroom.
Do you ever review A Bridge Too Far??
@29:50 this is a great example of why movies often have to take liberties when telling a story based on real events. Real life is usually extremely dull compared to what we expect from movies. Not to suggest that filmmakers shouldn't try to be accurate, but they shouldn't do so to the extent that their movie is bloated and tedious.
True. In Braveheart for example I am glad they did the open field battle of Sterling in the movie instead of the bridge/swamp chokepoint battle it actually was.
The balance is always a struggle!
...hollywood history.... @@lanceheaps581
Duvall's "performance" in this is so bad; it's almost as if southern apologists kidnapped a relative of his to coerce him to do the movie!
It is a shame he didn't have a stronger script. His talents and resemblance were not put to full effect.
@@ReelHistory agreed. He's a tremendous actor. Maybe he was going for a more reserved or subdued version of Lee.
It blows my mind the same people who made Gettysburg made this. What changed in those ten years?
It strayed from the source material.
@@ReelHistory Absolutely, but why? Maxwell and Turner stayed pretty close on Gettysburg. Love to see someone interview Ron Maxwell and ask that very question.
@@ChuckG92, you pose valid questions!
@@ReelHistory Sounds like maybe bring Ron on to discuss... I don't think he's overly busy ;-) Certainly if Jeff Shaara can stop by to chat, Ron should speak to this burning questions.
Its my guess that having Bud Richardson as an advisor skewed it towards having so much Jackson bio material in it.. Don't get me wrong I liked Richradson's Jackson bio more than Rebel Yell, but it was too much for one movie.
Once Stonewall was gone !!! The Vacuum of leadership was not filled at Gettysburg!!
Funny how it seems to be missed that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation freed not a single slave in the Union. MD was a slave-state, the Mason-Dixon line is its northern boundary. It only freed slaves in the states in rebellion. Seems to be an important fact to overlook when discussing such a historical document, doncha think.
It is something which is well known as the President would not have the legal authority to free any slave by executive order except in territory captured by the states in rebellion and under military governance. The Proclamation did get the ball rolling on making abolition a war aim and led to the eventual,passage of the 13th Amendment.
This is not the "gotcha" point some think it is.