Blew off 'Gettysburg' and 'Gods & Gens', mistake? (1 Viewer)

[TheLongshot]

Well, I love Mary Fahl, and I hate Dylan... (Man is a great songwriter, but shouldn't be allowed to sing his own songs...)

I at least thought she should have gotten a nomination, even if in the end the compitition would have been better.

Jason

 

[MichaelW]

Loved Gettysberg. A phenomenal and engrossing movie.

Fully intended to love Gods and Generals. It just didn't have it for me. It was o.k., but nothing special.

Similar in many ways to the books they were based on. Michael Sarra's "The Killer Angels" which is the book Gettysberg was based on, was a Pulitzer-winning novel and was brilliant from cover to cover. Michael died and his son Jeff picked up where his father left off and wrote "Gods and Generals" (Civil War prior to Gettysberg) and "The Last Full Measure" (Civil Was after Gettysberg). While both of Michael's books were very good, they did not quite match his father's. Although I will admit, like most, I read the father's work first so there could be a bias there.

If you are a civil war buff, you will love both.

If you are moderately interested, watch Gettysberg first and want to become a civil war buff. Then Gods and Generals will hold your interest better.

If you are not interested at all in the Civil War, but just like movies - watch Gettysberg and feel free to skip Gods and Generals.

 

[FrankT]

I thought Gods and Generals was one of the worst films that year. I had to prevent myself from turning it off countless times. I would NOT recommend buying it.

 

[Matt_P]

With all due respect, Gods and Generals is simply one of the worst films I have ever seen. This is from a guy who enjoys history and war films. I wrote a brief, off the cuff review of it in the review thread when it came out. I'm still trying to comprehend how I managed to sit through all four hours...

You may enjoy it if you're a huge Civil War buff, but in terms of being cinematically effective, it's a disaster.

Good musical score, though, albeit repetitive.

 

[Kain_C]

Gettysburg was pretty decent. I'm a huge World War 2 buff and no at all interested in the civil war, so that's quite a compliment from me.

Gods and Generals...I have never been able to sit through more than 10 minutes of this travesty. Horribly pompous in the fact that the director expects the audience to stay glued to a bunch of moronic speeches that made me shudder. Some of the speeches are so PC it made me want to puke, especially one Jeff Daniels 'delivers'.

 

[Yee-Ming]

I'd agree with the performance, but IMHO the problem was physical: Martin Sheen isn't exactly the tallest fellow around, whereas IIRC Lee was well over 6 ft tall. Knowing this, it is quite a leap to "get" Sheen as Lee, seeing so many other cast members towering over Sheen.

With famous historic figures where many good images of that person are available, this is always a limitation: the public already has a good idea what the person looked like, and casting someone who doesn't fit immediately pulls you out.

 

[Michael Harris]

You got the reason for my miscasting down perfectly. Looking at Martin Sheen I did not believe I was looking at Robert E. Lee. I felt I was looking at an actor in makeup. Compare that with Sheen's performance as Robert Kennedy in "The Missiles of October" where I believed he was Kennedy.

He seemed to capture, in his performance, Lee's demeanor and aloofness but his physical presence did not project that.

 

[Stephen J*]

I think Gettysburg was a much better movie than Gods and Generals, but I still think picking up the two would be worth it.

One of the things that annoys me with G & G is the host of cameos of Gettysburg officers that don't really add to the film (Barksdale, Trimble, Hood, Patton etc.), and the little snippets of CS regulars that just feel like they were forced into the movie.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"I'd agree with the performance, but IMHO the problem was physical: Martin Sheen isn't exactly the tallest fellow around, whereas IIRC Lee was well over 6 ft tall. Knowing this, it is quite a leap to "get" Sheen as Lee, seeing so many other cast members towering over Sheen."

The height of Robert E. Lee is in some dispute, as his height seems to have grown along with his legend. A medical journal from 1863, describing his lingering ailments from a throat infection, list the General's height as 5'10.5".

Martin Sheen is 5'7". Not a huge discrepancy.

A southern journalist wrote, after the war, that Lee stood 6'4", while other texts describe him as being 6' on the nose. I'm inclined to believe the doctors and not believe the Southern Myth-Makers. That he was frequently described as tall is not too surprising, as the average height of a Civil War Soldier was 5'8". Yes, at 5'10.5", he would have been taller than average, and with his boots on and with the crown of his hat, he would have indeed appeared taller than his average soldier. But if we believe the medical records, he was not the tallest man of his day, nor even the tallest of his trusted Generals at Gettysburgh.

In the film, Gettysburgh, Lee (Martin Sheen) is shown to be shorter than General James Longstreet (Tom Berenger). If we accept the medical records that Lee stood 5'10.5", then what we see in the film is indeed historically accurate, since Longstreet stood a burly 6'2".

All of this is a bit moot, because when I evaluate a performance based on a historical figure, I evaluate the performance. When I watch Henry V, I don't go and grab a history book and a tape measure. When I watch Schindler's List, I don't get hung up on the fact that Ralph Fiennes isn't as overweight as the real Amon Goeth.

"With famous historic figures where many good images of that person are available, this is always a limitation: the public already has a good idea what the person looked like, and casting someone who doesn't fit immediately pulls you out."

I'm reminded of the opening credits of Gettysburgh -- where the filmmakers chose to show you photographs of the real historical figure alongside photos of the actors who portrayed them in the film. It was a bold choice, and it signaled from the get-go that the filmmakers were indeed trying to give a sense of historical verisimilitude to the project. In many cases, the casting was spot on perfect. For Lee, what was more important -- an actor who needed another 3.5 inches to stand as tall as the real Lee, or an actor who could capture Lee's sense of Virginian honor, his spiritual faith, and most importantly, his tragic (almost supernatural) belief in his own abilities and destiny, leading to his disastrous decisions on that warm July 3rd, 1863.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Hmmm, hadn't considered hyperbole by Southern journalists. But even assuming that Lee was "merely" 5'10.5", you note the average soldier was 5'8" and therefore Lee was "relatively" tall. Sheen is by no stretch of the imagination "relatively" tall -- even compared to the average Civil War grunt he was just a tad short, and since the average height has gone up, on set with modern-day actors, he was indeed below average height. Which is the whole point, he never seemed to tower over everyone else. Perhaps that's why horseback scenes seemed just a bit more realistic.

Also, from photographs I've seen, Lee was rather lanky and thin, whereas Sheen is somewhat stocky. Again, the physicality doesn't quite match, therefore breaking the illusion.

I don't dispute the excellence of the performance, which I certainly enjoyed, just that the disparity made suspension of disbelief a little more difficult. And as for Amon Goeth, how many of us have seen a real photograph of the man? My point being, for relatively famous historic figures whose image is well known, such as Lee, or indeed most post Civil War US Presidents, getting an actor who looks somewhat similar, face and body-wise, helps.

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Sheen is by no stretch of the imagination "relatively" tall -- even compared to the average Civil War grunt he was just a tad short, and since the average height has gone up, on set with modern-day actors, he was indeed below average height. Which is the whole point, he never seemed to tower over everyone else. Perhaps that's why horseback scenes seemed just a bit more realistic."

I feel like Alice through the looking-glass. We're evaluating the performance of Martin Sheen through a prism of inches. The man is 3.5" shorter than the real Robert E. Lee. You write that "he never seemed to tower over anyone else" when the real Robert E. Lee was a mere 2 inches taller than the average civil war soldier. Why is it important that an actor portraying Lee "tower" over people, especially since it is doubtful the real Lee "towered" over those in his innner circle? This fixation on height reminds me of Napoleon in Terry Gilliam's Time Bandits.

The film Gettysburgh BEGINS by showing the actors in costume alongside photographs of the real men. This opening clearly demonstrates a sincere and honest effort by the filmmakers to acknowledge the true likeness of the historical figures, and the differences with the actors chosen to represent those people. They aren't trying to fool anyone, they're saying "here are the real people, and here are the players". To be very frank, I'm mystified how anyone could have missed this element of the film (how the film begins by showing the real people alongside the players), and more to the point, how they could let 3.5 inches bother them to the point of distraction. To each their own, I suppose.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Yes, to each his own. I found the disparity (not just the inches, but body-shape) slightly distracting, you didn't. Fair enough. Also, please note I'm not "evaluating" his performance, which I recognise was brilliant, on this basis, just noting that physicality-wise, there was a disconnect.

If anything, the prelude showing real-life photograph and actor just emphasized the disparity: IMHO Jeff Daniels, for instance, was superbly cast, he really resembled the figure he portrayed -- you'd think he was related.

Let's take the flip-side: if a 6ft actor played Napoleon or Hitler, both short men, wouldn't you be distracted?

Perhaps it's also to do with stereotypes, the legend of Lee is such that we rather expect a tall, dashing Southern gentlemen, and while Sheen did well to be dashing, nothing could sort out the height. Curiously, I'm reminded of the discussion as to the next Bond, with most fans expecting another 6ft (or taller) actor to take over from Brosnan, when in reality MI5's recently published "requirements" give a height maximum of 5'10", precisely because a tall man sticks out and is easily noticed. (And before anyone nitpicks, yes I know Bond is MI6 not MI5, but you get the idea.)

As an aside, why do you spell it "Gettysburgh"?

 

[Ernest Rister]

"Let's take the flip-side: if a 6ft actor played Napoleon or Hitler, both short men, wouldn't you be distracted?"

The height issue is important only if the screenwriters choose to make it important. If they never bring it up, if it is not germaine to the plot of the film, no - it is not important and wouldn't distract me. Again, I don't get hung up on inches nor do I demand absolute historical fidelity when judging a performance. I thought Hopkins was amazing in Nixon. He wasn't doing a Richard Nixon impersonation, he was creating his own character, approaching the text the same way he would approach a Shakspearean character. Some people were put off by the fact that his "Nixon" looked and sounded very little like the real thing, but that's not the point in any historical film, and it never has been. A historical drama first has to work as a movie -- look at Braveheart. Hardly historically accurate, but they capture the spirit of the Wallace legend. Hopkins was trying to capture the spirit of the Nixon character as presented in the Oliver Stone screenplay. Sheen was trying to capture the character of Lee. None of these films are trying to fool you. If it was important to the story that Lee "tower" over people, they would have cast a taller actor. But its not important, hence, they went with the best actor available, not the tallest actor available.