 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: "Pearl Harbor" Reconsidered posted by mikenyc on August 11, 2002 at 11:45:24:
None of the movies that has dealt with Pearl Harbor has been totally satisfactory. This film falls into the catagory of not a very good movie, but a great DVD. Have some company over, fix nachos and Marguerittas and go to it (oh, turn up the subwoofer a bit). Nevertheless, I must say that I disagree with your re-evaluation of this film and here is why.1. The visuals are rather nice, if you haven't seen them before. This is Bruckheimer, and we have seen them before. They have, for me, ceased to be effective and have become a stock mannerism.
2. The love story is predictable, as in . . . saw this coming a MILE away. In fact, I was watching with a friend and I kept saying ". . . please tell me this isn't the ancient 'but he isn't really dead' routine." Oh, well.
3. The sensibility for women that pleased you was a typical movie anachronism, i.e. a 21st century attitude superimposing itself on a time when such attitudes didn't exist. I guess they wanted to be sure they didn't offend any potential customers who have a political ax to grind in this area. Good for the box office, bad history. And its gentle terms for describing the attack (substituting "surprise" for "sneak") absolutely reek of whimpiness. (Is Bruckheimer Swiss? Or just the typical politically correct denizen of Hollywood? Agh. No matter. Even more customers not offended.)The film avoids some of the banalities of the films that preceded it but perpetrates some new ones. It is (IMHO), like most movies of this genre, well made entertainment. No more, no less. I do own it, but for nacho movie nights.
Follow Ups:
"The sensibility for women that pleased you was a typical movie anachronism, i.e. a 21st century attitude superimposing itself on a time when such attitudes didn't exist."I don't know about that.
Women were taking over men's job's in the workplace, and with it, the whole concept of contemporary sexuality, was being turned on it's head. With the entire world at War, and the concept of "living for the moment", it was a time of great liberation for Women, in every aspect of their lives.
That it is was only to be temporary, and last until the men returned home at end of the war, was inevitable...at least until the development of oral contraceptives and Family Planning, of the Fifties and early Sixties.
The seeds were planted for change during the war and but did not sprout until much later. We agree on the later, here is why I say "much". Rosey the Rivetter was (with only a few exceptions) much happier at home rearing kids and making dinner for hubby. And that is exactly where she went as soon as it was possible. Familly planning began to mainstream (with the resistance of the Catholic church) in the 60's. That mainstreaming was mostly complete by the 70's, but for the workplace the effects were (and still are) gradual.However, even imposing a 60's set of mores on a film set in WWII would be incorrect, much less 2000+ mores. Which was my point.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
