From Joanna Parker:
“Because of all the glowing reviews I read on LRC about ‘Gods and Generals,’ I couldn’t resist buying the film — but, frankly, I found it disappointing.
“It is indeed, as reported, infused with religious sentiments — supposedly Christian; but it’s an Old Testament sort of Christianity, which is, let’s face it, an oxymoron.
“The characters are pretty much one-dimensional. The men are all heroic, virtuous, impeccably Perfect Gentlemen; the women are as you can imagine: delicate, demure, devoted, angelic, (and dull!).“The facts that formed the basis for the war are rarely touched upon. No fresh or truly salient points are brought out — not enough, anyway, to grab the viewer’s interest or capture his sustained attention.
“Of course, I could have missed something, since I kept nodding off throughout the film.
“One thing I didn’t miss: Upon hearing that three of his men had deserted but were caught and brought back to the brigade, General Jackson (“Stonewall”) justifies their [inevitable] execution to the young soldier who has brought him the report. Ignoring the pain on the young man’s face, Jackson sermonizes: ‘I regard the crime of desertion as a sin against the army of the Lord…The duty (to shoot the deserters) is ours; the consequences are God’s.’
“This kind of ‘righteousness’…well, I can do without. And then-some. (The men had volunteered, and they perservered until they couldn’t take any more. What’s the big deal?)
“Most of the story is centered around Jackson and his ‘greatness.’ We see very little of Lee. (Robert Duvall seems vaguely uncomfortable in the role.)”
1:06 pm on December 9, 2003
