 
|
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: What we are looking for in a war movie posted by Victor Khomenko on April 18, 2000 at 13:21:25:
What did you think of Saving Private Ryan? The early scenes in this film struck me as capturing the barbaric hopelessness of combat where being in the wrong place at the wrong time is all that matters (the men in the LST that drops its door on the beach right in front of a machine gun nest for example).I tend to agree with your asssesment of US & Hollywood idealism regarding war. I suspect it is born of geographic isolation in large part. The fact is that the US has never suffered invasion and the consequences of war first hand - the only Americans who have are the ones sent to combat. And even among them the number of casualties has been remarkably smallcompared to many other nations. As a result the bulk of the population has no context for what it is actually like - and in fact often respond negatively to films which depict it accurately as it doesnt fit with their sanitized preconcieved notions. On one hand the fact our society hasnt faced the cataclysm of war on its home ground is a wonderful thing, on the other it does breed a certain naivety regarding what war is actually like.
The one war that should serve to offer that context (the US civil war, which took more American lives than any other war the US has ever engaged in) is over a century behind us - and given the short historical attention span of the average American that basically means it never happened...
joe
***What did you think of Saving Private Ryan?On the whole, not much. Way too many weaknesses.
***The early scenes in this film struck me as capturing the barbaric hopelessness of combat where being in the wrong place at the wrong time is all that matters (the men in the LST that drops its door on the beach right in front of a machine gun nest for example).I agree here. However, in art, in most of its forms, I seek subtle ways more than gross, primitive, overt ones. One can get a person's attention by striking him on the head with a hammer. One can also use more subtle forms. My problem with SPR is that is is much more the hammer thing. So while being effective at getting attention, it also lacks in the artistic department.
***I tend to agree with your asssesment of US & Hollywood idealism regarding war. I suspect it is born of geographic isolation in large part. The fact is that the US has never suffered invasion and the consequences of war first hand - the only Americans who have are the ones sent to combat. And even among them the number of casualties has been remarkably smallcompared to many other nations. As a result the bulk of the population has no context for what it is actually like - and in fact often respond negatively to films which depict it accurately as it doesnt fit with their sanitized preconcieved notions. On one hand the fact our society hasnt faced the cataclysm of war on its home ground is a wonderful thing, on the other it does breed a certain naivety regarding what war is actually like.***The one war that should serve to offer that context (the US civil war, which took more American lives than any other war the US has ever engaged in) is over a century behind us - and given the short historical attention span of the average American that basically means it never happened...
That is precisely true, and expresses my feelings 1000%.
..I found the whole film relentless as well. It certainly didnt provoke thought as much as it assaulted you. But given American views of war it represented at least a bit of a breakthrough for Hollywood in depicting people as less than bulletproof heroes. I'm wondering if thats the most we can hope for given where the average moviegoer here is coming from.Hey, at least Tom Hanks didnt have a limitless clip machine gun in each hand taking on the entire Wehrmacht all by his bulletproof lonesome. Unfortunately, in Hollywood, this must be considered a small victory...
joe
***..I found the whole film relentless as well. It certainly didnt provoke thought as much as it assaulted you. But given American views of war it represented at least a bit of a breakthrough for Hollywood in depicting people as less than bulletproof heroes. I'm wondering if thats the most we can hope for given where the average moviegoer here is coming from.
Hey, at least Tom Hanks didnt have a limitless clip machine gun in each hand taking on the entire Wehrmacht all by his bulletproof lonesome. Unfortunately, in Hollywood, this must be considered a small victory...That is true. I sometimes tend to see things in an absolute, rather than relative, way. When taken against the rest of that almost invariably pale background, it stands out.
Perhaps my frastration with it is from realizing that it was not all that it could have been. They had all the resources they needed, they had a good shot at greatness, and all they have achived was just above the average.
We may not get another chance for quite some time.
...Spielberg somehow missing the mark on the concentration camps in Schindlers list. That film also felt staged and lacking in the otherworldly sense of daily regimented brutality that places like the camps must have really been. Regarding reality vs film for a moment, I'm not sure what was scarier - what happened in the camps or that an entire regimented routine of procedure and order was created and sustained to do it. I'm not sure I would want to see the movie that would really convey that...joe
Human beings have been on that mission for the longest time. Still, the inventiveness of the evil mind sometimes is striking.It can be argued than no intelligent person should go through life without reading the Gulag Archipelago. In that endless narration there is a particular interesting moment.
The chapter deas with the subject of latrine bucket and its effects on lives of former human beings, now denied any rights. The author notes that it is common to talk about the bucket as the symbol of suffering and opression, of complete lack of any comfort and of total humiliation. People talk about prisoners sleeping on top each other, of having to step on many bodies on your trip to that bucket. About the horror of being placed, and forced to sleep right next to it. Of an awfull smell...
All that is not real horror, the author states. The *real* horror begins when the bucket is removed from the cell.
... the next Hollywood war epic coming soon to a theater near you will surely miss. I dont wnow if you've heard about it yet but a production is in the works called "Pearl Harbor". Word is the director is planning to show the US putting up a rather spirited and more or less successful defense. When it was pointed out to him that the battle was one of the US's more thorough and profound defeats he is reported to have said something to the effect that "To hell with historical accuracy. It's my movie and this time we win!"I can't wait. Want me to preorder a ticket for you?
But back to the more profound for a moment. Yes, the ability to systematically inflict pain and suffering is a most remarkable aspect of the human species. History has proven time and time again that civilization is a veneer on human existence which is tissue paper thin. It take precious little to disrupt it. And the fall into chaos and behaviors that are otherwise unimaginable is remarkably rapid.
joe
In a sense, the out of place clean shirts, uniform pants with belts, and leather jackets Victor complains about in Stalag 17 have a long heritage. WWII was a terribly messy affair. Disorganization, incompetence, and simple stupidity at all levels. The U.S. military wanted us to see an orderliness which in reality wasn't there. It enlisted the aid of Hollywood and was largely successful. Films such as Stalag 17 are descendents of the propoganda produced during the war era. They inherit the veneer, which is part of the genre.Hogan's Heroes relentlessly transfers disorganization and incompetence onto the enemy.
I think thats the province of all goverments attempting to rally a population behind a war and maintain morale. The puffery of the movies lends itself quite handily to the purpose. The psychology of rallying public support for war is aided by the dehumaization of opponents or the depiction of them as oafs and fools making it all the easier to rationalize to the public why we should and will triumph - of course every country is doing the same thing with their popular media at the same time. Whose right? Whoever actually wins. They get to write the history books. Of course thats the cynics view (who me?).And dammit, yes it was messy. But what war isnt?
Hogans heroes? I suspect the depiction of Germans as likeable oafs (those silly Nazis, what are they up to now?) had more to do with cold war politics and depicting a necessary ally in a positive light rather than as cold blooded monsters.
joe
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 ]
