The movie The General set during the Civil War tells the unlikely story of a train engineer, rejected by the military with no obvious combat skills or training, winning a battle and become an officer in Confederate Army. Along the way the film pokes fun at the military and its hierarchy, values and symbols.
What is the film telling us about the armed forces, about war and about the values of the military? Is it a satire -- and if so, how biting is the criticism? What is war good for?
Some may argue that the movie The General conforms to traditional patriarchal gender roles. Annabelle Lee, the heroine, is kidnapped (albeit inadvertently) by hostile soldiers and needs the heroic exploits of her lover to rescue her. She is portrayed as submissive to her father and brother, ineffectual in plotting her own escape (such as throwing a stick of wood into the train furnace or failing to stop the engine so her lover can board it), and often exhibiting domestic inclinations ( as when she sweeps the engine with a broom).
In the movie The General Johnnie Gray, a simple engineer,tries to win the heart of his girlfriend by enlisting in the army. Although he is refused, he eventually takes on a group of Northern soldiers who hijack his train. Not only does he rescue his beloved Anabelle (and General), but he also helps defeat a Northern army in battle. Yet, his methods are hardly standard derring-do. Is Johnnie just lucky or a true hero? Does this film endorse standard ideas of military heroism or make fun of them? Or does this movie redefine a hero? What does this movie tell us about heroism (or related concepts of machismo, chivalry, or militarism)?
D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation is considered a landmark American film that ushered in many of the hallmarks of classic Hollywood cinema. It is preserved in the National Film Registry and is listed in the top 100 films of all time by AMC cable channel and the AFI (American Film Institute). Yet it is also a film which advocates white supremacy and lionizes the Klu Klux Klan. Can such a film truly be great? Why or why not? What about other films such the Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will a film that trumpets Nazi ideology and celebrates Adolph Hitler? Do political and moral statements matter in an artwork? Or is it enough to be technically and artistically brilliant? Can an artwork's message trump its style?
Some commentators have dubbed Méliès's film A Trip to the Moon the first science fiction movie. Not all critics, however, agree. Tom Gunning, the author of our essay on that film, argues for the contrary view. He states, " 'Science' fiction implies a certain sobriety and serious concern with scientific and technological possibilities. . . . But Méliès cannot take his scientists seriously at all, introducing them first as wizards with pointy hats, figures out of fairy pantomime . . . (70). What do you think? While you may not be able to judge whether this is the first of its kind, you can make a judgment about whether or not it qualifies as science fiction. Compare this film with other science fiction movies you have seen. How is it the same? How is it different? Can we call it a science fiction film, a precursor of such films, or something entirely different?
