Did Political Correctness really cause this film to fail?

No, I remember when it came out it upset some people, but the reality is it was too long and too archaic a movie for the masses. It was never going to succeed as a movie. Now, as a miniseries it would have been well received.

"Political correctness" is a nebulous non-concept that certain elements love to cite as a reason for ANYTHING. The real reason this movie failed is quite simple: it was a bad movie.

Gettysburg was amazing, and I have no problem recommending it to anyone. It balanced the two sides and focused on the very human struggle of the men involved. This one, on the other hand, was a throwback to the days when studios, in an effort to keep ticket sales high in the South as well as the rest of the country, made sure that you bought into the party line that the war was in no way shape or form about slavery, we've never owned or even seen slaves, and all the slaves love us. The ones we don't have.

-----------
With trenches full of poets,
The ragged army, fixing bayonets to fight the other line

This film (I'm speaking of the 2003 theatrical release here) flopped pure and simple because it's not very good. It suffers from:

-Poor editing. Many scenes occur that offer no explanation as to what they are about. For example, the scene where Generals A.P. Hill and Maxcy Gregg discuss the mutual grudge they hold against Stonewall Jackson, the movie never offers any explanation on what that grudge is about. For all we know, it might as well be because Jackson got a much bigger part in the movie than they did. I would almost think that this film was edited by an intern on his or her first day rather than by an experienced filmmaker.

-Lack of dialogue. You can count on one hand how many actual conversations take place in this three hours-plus movie. After that, all it is is just people talking while others listen. Perhaps this was the way people frequently communicated in the 19th Century, I don't know. Monologue and speeches can be very powerful in a movie, but this film could have used a lot more dialogue to make it much more dramatic and real to the audience.

-Pointless scenes. The movie could have done without stuff like Stonewall Jackson playing with a little kid or the two no-name Confederates. In the end, I don't think they added anything to the film.

-Bad history. It's nice that the uniforms and battle scenes are very accurate but the issue that brought on the War is not.

It is well documented in people's letters and diaries, in newspapers of the period, in the transcripts of speeches, and in the "Declarations of Causes" of the many Secession Conventions of the Southern states and in the actions of soldiers during the war that the South seceded from the Union, formed the Confederate States and fought the war to defend slavery and White supremacy. Yet in this film, none of those beliefs happen to make it to the screen. Characters- even many Northerners- are shown with modern racial attitudes. This may make them seem more appealing to us but as a historian, it offers no chance to understand why people believed the things that they believed. To be sure, slavery itself is practically invisible. Unless they all ran off by Decemeber 1862, I find it troubling that no slaves are featured at Moss Neck Manor, Roberta Cary Corbin's 1600-acre plantation, the scene of the Christmas party. I also don't buy the scene where Stonewall Jackson tells Jim Lewis that General Lee and others, in the fall of 1862, are seriously considering emancipation and enlisting Blacks as soldiers- something that did not happen until the very end when it was too little and too late.

Ron Maxwell, writer/director/producer of Gods and Generals, wanted this film to appeal to a mass audience. Instead, it only seemed to appeal to the neo-Confederate, Lost Cause element. Really too bad that a great opportunity to teach about the Civil War was wasted. Making a bad movie and then trying to blame its lack of success on other people's problems (i.e. "political correctness") is a shame.

I think Roger Ebert had it right when he said it was a movie primarily for Civil War buffs. There isn't much here to draw in a casual moviegoer. I'm sure politics turned some people off but that's far not the main problem. It's a very ponderous film that lacks much an entry point for the uninitiated. In Gettysburg you at least had relatable characters; in Gods and Generals you have talking statues.

"I had a big lunch that DIDN'T tempt fate!"

Ron Maxwell is 100% to blame for this! The only thing it had in common with the book was the title and Stonewall dies at the end.

Also the supporting cast appears straight out of community theater. No wonder Russell Crowe bolted on this.

It's funny how everyone keeps saying "Gettysburg" was a better film and "Gods and Generals" a failure, blah, blah, blah when I think the precise opposite. I saw "Gettysburg" at the theater and it was difficult to sit through. The entire first hour was one of the dullest set-ups of a movie I've ever sat through.

"Gods and Generals," on the other hand, held my attention from beginning to end; it's one of the better Civil War films, along with "Ride with the Devil," "Glory," "Pharaoh's Army" and "The Horse Soldiers."

=========================

"I... don't... see... any... method... at... all... sir."

It was also not a very good idea to use the same actor to play gen. Pickett in Gettysburg and Jackson in Gods and Generals. That creates a bit of latent confusion with viewers. It shouldn't but I'm certain it does.

I also wonder if the personality of Jackson isn't partly to blame for the movie being badly received. For all his being hailed a military hero in the south, he wasn't a particularly admirable person. Bloodthirsty, utterly convinced of his righteousness and religious fanaticism and with little regard for the welfare of his soldiers. He was known not to be loathe to execute soldiers at the drop of a hat and not being adverse to dropping the hat himself either. And while being portrayed as the perfect southern gentleman in the movie, in real life he apparently fathered an illegitimate child. Not important in light of the movie perhaps, but not the stuff heroes are made of either.

I've never really understood the false romanticism surrounding so many southern generals - Lee, Jackson, Bedford Forrest, Stuart and so on. Gentlemen they may have been, except for millionaire slave-trader Bedford Forrest, they were still traitors to their country and guilty of fighting for a slave-holding insurrection. And causing more American deaths than other foreign enemies of the USA combined. I can't see that as anything admirable.