Has anyone seen this movie yet. I went to the four hour epic and greatly enjoyed it. I was shocked at a Ted Turner film having so many references to God in it. The film portrayed Stonewall Jackson as a steadfast Christian who was brilliant, brave, ethical, and combining strength and gentleness. This is contrast to many of Hollywood/TV's portraits of Christians as sort of weak milk toast types. It did not skip over the issue of slavery and had a good scene between Jackson and John Lewis (African American cook for Jackson) where the two men dialogued through prayer. The film also addressed the fact that there was racism on both sides. I am looking forward to the next two installments. Someone said this first film actually began as a six-hour epic. Sadly many are more interested in films like 'The Spy Who Shagged Me' or 'Dumb and Dummer' style films. I notice the film was not in the top three grossers over the weekend. North
I haven't seen the movie yet and have heard mixed reviews, but your recommendation speaks well of it. The idea of casting Robert Duvall as Robert E. Lee (who was, I hear, portrayed as agnostic?) sounds brilliant. The bit about Stonewall Jackson's faith sounds true to the man, whose last words were "Good. I always wanted to die on a Sunday." Back when I was editing the Confederate Generals volume in Blackbirch Press' middle school Voices from the Civil War series (to be published in June), I found it easy to understand why he's remembered as one of the great legendary figures of the war. Dedicated to the point of borderline psychosis (he got his name by holding his ground while he heard the bullets breeze by), and has a reputation for being one of the best military strategists of the war. And he drove his troops hard--they were actually called "foot cavalry" because they marched so fast and relentlessly. But what a strange, strange man. Cheers,
On the second point: It's true that there was racism on both sides of the war, something that does not come across in (if you'll forgive the phrase) Civil War pop culture. The 1863 draft riots (which apparently played a major role in Gangs of New York) were extremely vicious and racially charged. And when George McClellan ran against Lincoln in 1864 on the platform of ending the war without abolishing slavery (his supporters accused Lincoln of secretly desiring "miscenegation," or race-mixing), he got over 45% of the (Union!) vote. Lincoln wrote as late as mid-1863 that if there was a way of ending the war without abolishing slavery, he'd take advantage of it. On the other hand, the war probably did start because of slavery--the speeches that drove South Carolina's secession were all about Lincoln's decision not to expand slavery into the territories, and how this represented a Federal encroachment that could later be turned against South Carolina's slavery-based agriculture economy. The fact that Lincoln won with only about 40% of the popular vote (there were three candidates) didn't help, either. Cheers,
(On the third point: Someone told me that G&G is actually a prequel to Gettysburg, by the same director, and that they represent two-thirds of the three-part epic.) Cheers,
TRUE. And more than what Tom says: virtually ALL critics give the picture low marks. Except Michael Medved and somebody over at the Weekly Standard online. Nonetheless, because so visual, so retro, so traditional, and unheralded--and about the most seminal event in American history--I'm curious to give it a shot before one can no longer see it on the big screen, too. --Orson PS History News Network had a good piece on the authenticity of "The Gangs of New York" (also heard on NPR around New Year's): generally, quite realistic. But these riots, save for the draft riot, were not so blood or deadly. Here, reality is seriously overstated. And then the Navy's guns were never turned on the city of New York.
