back to top
|It's great to hear these perspectives. With "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals", there really seem to be two issue - the accuracy of the adaption of the books, and then the larger historic issues such as slavery. With "Gods and Generals", I noticed that it just opens with individuals choosing sides. Jackson does give some exposition about his loyalty to Virginia, but there's not much of broader look at why these men are facing this decision to begin with. If it were strictly a Jackson bio, then his perspective would be central and that would make sense. But the film really does try to cover a lot of material. The "Gettysburg" covered one battle, while "Gods and Generals" glosses over the entire war leading up to that battle - and obviously leaves out a lot. This really isn't a true Jackson bio, as his entire Valley campaign is skipped.
For the story I'm working with, the families involved were not directly involved because of slavery. They are involved because of their location. I'm trying to tell a specific story about their experiences, not cover the entire war or the politics behind the war. The audience knows much of that already. I feel like my responsibility is to accurately show the perspectives of the people being depicted as they were, not so much to introduce broader concepts that weren't part of their daily struggles. Of course, their situation is part of a broader context. And I will try to make that point. But I've searched the diaries and property records for mention of slaves, and I'm just not finding that information in this case.