A Brief Review of 'Gods and Generals'
By Bill Potter
February 20, 2003
Stonewall Jackson has often seemed an enigma to historians who have probed below
his performance as a military tactician. They are puzzled at his character and modes
of thinking — his “world view” in modern parlance. While his beliefs
were typical of theocentric Calvinism (a somewhat redundant construct) common among
many Christians, especially in the South, Jackson’s unique circumstances as
a warrior in command of a large army have placed him in the spotlight of celebrity.
Dr. James Robertson, Jackson’s most understanding biographer, has observed
that the general lived a life of godly personal behavior, which included demonstrative
and unreserved love for his wife Anna, the establishment of an orderly and biblically
self-conscious home, ironclad attention to military duty, and uncompromising and
deadly destruction of Virginia’s enemies. I believe that Stephen Lang, the
actor who portrays the general, conveys all those traits as well as anyone could
in a film. I see nothing inconsistent about Stonewall Jackson’s living a bold
and consistent Christian life. The real enigma is the modern pusillanimous Christian
who seeks to incorporate the popular culture and fears the wrath of pundits and
politically correct shakedown artists. I doubt that General Jackson would have understood
or appreciated Christians who would rather see altar calls than bugle calls and
the rule of fate rather than faith in a war in defense of home and hearthside
General Jackson’s weeping at the death of Janie Corbin and enjoying her attempts
to please him has been ridiculed as maudlin sentimentalism (at best) by film critics,
but the events actually occurred in the winter of 1863 and represent a human touch
by the director. Jackson’s heartfelt beliefs fairly leap from the screen, especially
the fact that God through providential means is in full control of men and events
even to the moment of a person’s death. Much more praise could be heaped on
Ron Maxwell’s script regarding the accuracy of historical events, including
his overall sense of causes of the war and the nature of slavery.
How does the director know so much about General Jackson as a Christian man, southern
patriot, and loving husband? After the war, Anna Jackson penned a beautiful and
intimate biography of her husband. Jackson’s adjutant and friend Robert Lewis
Dabney, D.D. wrote a full-length biography and was himself a wise and articulate
Christian officer. Surviving members of Jackson’s staff, especially James Power
Smith, Henry Kyd Douglas, and Dr. Hunter McGuire, left ample records of the life
and character of the general. All of these sources and more were mined for the actor’s
role, and then brilliantly executed.
Just as Stonewall Jackson’s life had many primary source chroniclers, so too
did Joshua Chamberlain, Colonel of the 20th Maine Infantry and the central Union
soldier of Gods and Generals. In many ways, Colonel Chamberlain was an exemplar
of the civilian soldier — untutored in the military arts, but zealous to serve
his country in time of war, as had his forebears. Some critics have panned Jeff
Daniels’ portrayal of the Colonel, from his erudite speeches to the size of
his chin. Analysts devoid of historical consciousness have stooped to criticizing
anatomy because of their inability to understand nineteenth-century Americans, especially
men so articulate and well-educated. Of course Colonel Chamberlain liked to make
references to antiquity and express himself in a philosophical manner — he
was a professor of logic, moral philosophy, and Greek. The Bowdoin College don was
a seminary graduate and friend of Harriet Beecher Stowe. Again, director Ron Maxwell
found his man to convey the zeal, intelligence, and beliefs of the Union officer
from Maine.
Does the film perfectly portray the men and events of the 1860s? Of course not,
it’s a movie! In fact, it is a cinematic interpretation of a novel! The actors
are only representing their subjects based on their reading of the historical evidence.
A film can only convey a few events and must necessarily omit full treatment of
any idea or historical incident. Nevertheless, the feel of the 1860s permeates this
film through the characters, the costumes, the settings, and the dialogue. The battle
scenes are artfully done, for we could not bear the reality of the carnage of that
war, nor do we wish to. If through the use of Civil War re-enactors, a sense of
the honor, heroism, and sacrifice of American men and women is successfully conveyed,
that alone makes the four hours spent at the theater worth the time. Americans who
are notoriously oblivious of who they are and what sacrifices their ancestors endured,
will come face to face with men, saints and sinners, in the most compelling and
historically accurate film yet produced for the big screen. Gods and Generals
should challenge the historical imagination of this generation and send people running
to the library to learn more of their own past.