Gods and generals -book vs film vs reality - Essay Example

GODS AND GENERALS - BOOK VS. FILM VS. REALITY Introduction: When a film is made, based on a book, the first thing that is done is a comparison. Where did the film deviate from the book In the case of Gods and Generals there is no doubt that both the writer of the book and the maker of the film, intended the same thing and that is to make an indelible impression. The methods they used varied and therefore so did the results. There is this common grouse that avid book readers have: the film is not as realistic as the book and has left out huge chunks of what should have been there. It is not easy for a person who has read the book, seen the whole plot unfolding in his mind's eye, literally living the characters whom he holds dear, sharing their joys and crying when they do, to watch the film and find that not all that he imagined is being enacted on the screen. It probably is a gross understatement to say that he feels terribly let down. The point of this piece of writing is not to do a review of this momentous film, but to understand how and where the film departs from the book on which it is based. John Zmirak, writing for the FrontPageMagazine.com has spoken of the film as one that has adhered to historical facts, with a vengeance. In the same write-up, he speaks of the reasons for the formation of the Confederacy, the legitimacy of the cause and the reasons why perceptions of the same have crystallized to what they are today. There is always a lacuna when painting a background in a movie. Though there are countless numbers of film aficionados who would say that a film is a much truer depiction of history than a book, there is a slight vacuum that is created in most movies. Gods and Generals is no exception to this rule. Jeff Shaara's book of the same name talks in great detail the issue of secession of the Southern states. The practice of slavery, the abolition of the same and other related events have not been given due importance in the film. Instead, the movie has focused on the emotions that run sky-high in all the principal characters. Points of difference: The power and valor of every single army officer has been highlighted to such an extent in the film that these characters seem to take on a larger than life image, one that is to a certain extent quite unrealistic. The point here to be noted is that it is very common to give real-life characters such images, so that the world will have an extraordinary picture in their minds, when their names are mentioned. This is precisely what has been done with the character of Stonewall Jackson. On the other hand, Burke Davis' book has painted a more human image, one that is plausible and one that seeks to paint the picture of the actual man and how he commanded an army during those battles. As Dennis Phillips has mentioned in his review on the book by Davis, there is a noticeable shift from the general trend to epitomize the character of Jackson. Davis gives credit where it is due, but does not glorify the commander where it is not necessary. It is this realistic representation that sets this book apart from the many that have been written based on the American Civil War. William B. Feis in his review on the film has pointed out the lack of depiction of one of the primary causes of the American Civil War. The far-from-true characterization of the slaves on the southern plantations has created a fairly large chasm between the film and the book. This is shown in the relationship between Jackson and his slave, Lewis. Though the film show the latter as one who is proud to be the 'property' of his master, little is done in the movie to show the whole concept of slavery (Feis 6). Is it true then that all or rather, most slaves felt the same emotions as Lewis Maybe and maybe not! There is a common tendency among most film goers to look at one character as a representative of sorts, of a particular group of people. This cannot be avoided; as there is this general tendency to do so, especially when historical facts are involved. Though, as mentioned earlier, there is a glossing over of important facts such as secession and slavery, there is no doubt that the director of the film, Ronald Maxwell, has gone literally overboard trying to pay attention to every single detail, in terms of sets and costumes. The battle scenes, though quite slow-moving, portray the turbulence that was felt not just on the battlefield, but also in the hearts of those who were involved in the battle. The war necessitated the depiction of the trauma felt by those who had to fight their kin, for the sake of a cause. This sentiment is also depicted to a certain extent in the autobiographical book by Chamberlain. Bayonet Forward, albeit with certain limitations. While the film has paid a lot of attention to detail, the work of Chamberlain does not provide the same level of accuracy. As an anonymous reviewer says, the maps provided are not accurate at all; those pertaining to the battle sites seem to be quite muddled up. At the same time, there are also quite a few facts that are presented in such a jumbled up way, that the entire book becomes fairly incoherent. Of course, one could excuse the level of accuracy of the cartography presented, but the entire narration is at best misleading and disjointed. When history is recorded for posterity, very often there are differences of opinion about the natures of men and women who figured in some of the major events in history. Robert E Lee is no exception to the rule. People stand in awe before his military pursuits, some of them glorified to such an extent that he is portrayed as an invincible person. Gods and Generals has portrayed this man in more or less the same light. The book by noted historian Douglas Freeman, on the other hand, gives both sides of the coin. While talking about the military prowess of this man, the book also points out some miscalculations that Lee committed. The passage from Volume III of the book R.E. Lee by Douglas Freeman, illustrates the conflict of duties in the military career of one of America's most well remembered warriors (Freeman 6). In support of piety and patriotism: In spite of all the adverse comments that Gods and Generals has had from the time it was released, till now, there is no doubt that the actors who played the parts of Jackson, J.L. Chamberlain, Lee, Lewis and many more, did not just act; they lived their roles from beginning to end. If Duvall (as Lee) or Daniels (as J.L. Chamberlain) or Lang (as Jackson) wanted people to fully understand the minds of the characters they played, and identify with those who shaped the destiny of the country they now live in, well then, these actors did succeed to a very large extent. Apart from the these main characters in the movie, there are a host of others whose demeanor and body language spelt out clearly the mindset of characters they portrayed. Whether it was defiance or submission, pride or humility, most of the men and women cast in this epic film, showed no signs of belonging to any other period of American history. Completely supportive of Ronald Maxwell's effort, it is felt that the film was a just portrayal and true-to-life rendition of one of the most difficult times in American history. Most reviews greatly appreciate the values that are put forth by the director: piety and patriotism. Instead of being just another war movie, he says that Gods and Generals revealed the truth about the attitudes and mindsets of both Southerners and Northerners, in a very poignant way. This unknown writer is representative of a large group of people who feel that the film has been unjustly criticized. The lengthy scenes with characters voicing strong opinions, seems to be quite out of sync with what people are familiar with today. Conclusion: Whether it is a book, a film or any other work of art, there is bound to be more than one opinion. If there is a group of people who think that Ronald Maxwell adhered implicitly to the book, there is certain to be a lot more who think he did not. Maxwell has endeavored, albeit after a lot of research, to make his characters life-like, trying to bring out, with as much authenticity as possible the milieu in which the battles were fought. Trying to put across the mood of this particular period in history is certainly no mean achievement. With a book to follow on the one hand and the sentiments of people to be honored on the other, there is no doubt that the director has tried his best to walk the tightrope of success without having a fatal fall. References: Douglas Southall Freeman, 1934, R E Lee: A Biography. Charles Scribner's Sons. Jeff Shaara & Michael Shaara, Apr 1998, Gods and Generals: A novel of the Civil War. Random House Publishing Group. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, 1994, "Bayonet Forward": My Civil War Reminiscences. Stan Clark Military Books. William B. Feis. (Spring 2003). Film Review: Gods and Generals. Headquarters Gazette. Read More