 
|
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 |
68.82.238.89
In Reply to: Re: Easily the pukiest movie of the decade posted by jamesgarvin on November 13, 2004 at 14:17:52:
***"It is built on worn out cliche's and cheap effects - like that miraculous shot by our sniper."***Hate to burst your bubble, but there were snipers during WWII that possessed incredible ability to make impossible shots (to you or me). They were largely loners, not being part of a "unit".
Real life ain't Hollywood. I suggest you check the sniper rifle capabilities. Hint: it ain't even close to that shot. If you can't find it let me know and I will tell you.
Follow Ups:
When noted WW II historian Stephen Ambrose saw the final screening of Saving Private Ryan, he asked the projectionist to stop the film after the opening sequence on Omaha Beach. "I said, "I've got to catch my breath.' I felt as if I hadn't breathed in a half an hour. I walked up the stairs and down the stairs in the theater about 10 times. Finally I got myself composed and said, "OK, roll it!' "In Zanuck's The Longest Day the whole movie turns on this incident, with Robert Mitchum in the end encouraging a couple of lieutenants to get up there and get those torpedoes under that barbed wire and then get the TNT up to the antitank obstacles at the head of the ravines and blow them up.
And that happens as a climax in the movie, and Robert Mitchum says, "Let's go on up that hill," and it's like the cavalry to the rescue. Guys from all over the beach start yelling like banshees and start moving up that draw. It's a great movie scene, but nothing remotely like that ever happened in fact. What happened in fact was much more like what is in Saving Private Ryan. Those ravines were much too well-defended to get up. The tanks that the infantry were told were going to be coming in with them, beside them -- these swimming tanks, these Shermans that had the inflatable rubber skirts around them, 32 of the 35 of them sank. There was no way to get up the ravines, and the true story of what happened at Omaha was much more inspiring than the way Zanuck presented it.
The search for Private Ryan is fiction," says historian Stephen Ambrose, "but of the kind that illuminates truth rather than diminishing it."
As Miller’s squad moves inland to search for Private Ryan, they enter a decimated French village, where they encounter terrified French civilians and battle a German sniper; Ambrose notes that this is representative of the experiences of Allied forces as they moved off the beaches.
Well, a noted WWII historian, the Academy which awarded Spielberg an Academy Award for best director, and 97% of professional movie critics (including the New York Times, Time Magazine, the L.A. Times, and the Chicago Sun Times) v. Victor. Perhaps you missed your calling, as you are apparently able to see what these professionals failed to see. Or is it more likely they saw what you failed to see? I suspect that if the film was made by a French director, it would have been much better. But then, the French do not make many WWII films, do they? Wonder why. Rather, I suspect that your dislike for this film has more to do with your dislike of Spielberg and Hollywood that on the merit. Simply admit your lack of objectivity and more on.
If nine reviewers loved your amplifier, and one thought is sounded terrible, which opinion would you ask us to believe? Which would be the eccentric? Which opinion would probably be guided by motives other than finding merit? Thought so.
All you had to do was say "I have no idea".
Dodge? You wrote that the opening scene was among the most ineptly done in history. You wrote that the opening scene is a pure playing on emotions. You wrote that rest of the film is idiotic. Those statements contain only conclusions, no analysis. I supplied you with an opinion of a noted WWII historian that directly refutes your statements, and yet not nary a word either supporting your conclusions or disputing those of Ambrose. Dodge? You have failed to do anything but provide blanket statements unsupported by any intelligent analysis. Kaka? Where, pray tell, did you learn that descriptive word? Is that a word of art? What level of higher education did you pick up that little chestnut?You wrote that WWII was a mutual accomplishment. Well, I suspect that your version of history is about as accurate as your reviews.
If your opinion of this film was based on single shot performed by a sniper, then I suspect you probably do not enjoy films. Probably not music either. Well, the fact that there is no Oz does not prevent me from loving that film. Though, I suspect, even that film has too much sentimentality for you. You asked what your nationality has to do with your opinions? I do not think it a secret that people from different places, and from different backgrounds, receive the same stimuli differently. Russians have a reputation of viewing music and events from a view in which emotions are not an important factor. Having met and known several Russian people, my experience with them confirms this reputation.
Although they never used the word Kaka.
Have you listened to Russian composers, conductors and musicians? Read Russian poets?Clearly Victor, for whatever reason, is refusing to address the fact that WWII vets vouch for the veracity of the landing scene but you shouldn't let the frustration from that cause you to paint with too broad a brush.
"Where are we going? And what am I doing in this hand basket?"
"Have you listened to Russian composers, conductors and musicians? Read Russian poets?"Yes, yes, yes, and no. My comments did not apply to the creators of the arts, only the patrons. You know, the same people who look at a beautiful painting and spend time analyzing the lines. Or the people who listen to music as though they are listening to a seminar on brain surgery, and can talk about nothing other than the missed notes, or the "sound" of the performance, or the intricacies of the score. I doubt the great composers wrote their symphonies hoping against hope that all people would analyze were the notes.
My point was that it appears Victor spends more time analyzing and thinking about a film than simply enjoying the film. My experience with Russian (Soviet is probably more accurate) people that I have known confirms for me that they tend to be more analytical. Which is fine. My observations tell me they spend less time enjoying life.
But this viewpoint would lead one to miss the purpose of the opening scene in Ryan, which Victor clearly has missed. It was meant to be experienced, not analyzed. Could Spielberg have made it more "artsy?" Less gory? Maybe. But why? That was not his goal. His clearly stated goal was to place the viewer in the position of the soldier in the heat of battle on the beach of Normandy. Why? Because no filmmaker had ever done so before. Having never been there, I can only accept what those who have been there have said - that he succeeded.
Victor was asked how would have done it differently. Predicably, no response. If I told Victor how to design amplifiers, or how to make his amplifiers better, he would probably tell me I was full of "kaka". Which I would not presume to do. But then he expouses his film critism not with the intent of contributing to the dialog, or willing to appreciate other's viewpoints, but rather with the notion that his opinions are provided from on high.
The first rule of critism is to review the film that has been made, not the film you wish had been made. The only question in the opening scene is whether Spielberg acheived his goal. Which he did. Not whether the viewer wishes Spielberg had done it differently. It was done differently - that film is The Longest Day. But as Ambrose pointed out, the sound choices in that film were made so that the viewer could hear the actors, not the actual sound of battle. In addition, veterans tell us that very few people were actually shot in the heart, or killed by a single bullet. More frequently, soldiers actually had guts spilling out, were picking up body parts, etc, and died slowly. Too much blood and guts? Welcome to the real world.
We probably do not need to see such carnage. But I do believe that it is important for those of us (including Victor) who have benefitted from these soldiers sacrifices to actually know what they went through. If there is another medium which can place me closer, other than enlisting, let me know.
To Victor, theirs is a story to be made into "art", as though art cannot tell it to us like it is. Well, I have seen the "art", and it has not made me appreciate their sacrifice. I was very moved. Probably more so than I have ever been at any movie. I have only cried in one other movie. Oddly, I did not loose it at the movie, but when I got home and thought about what these solders went through. And that their deaths have allowed me to breathe the air I breathe. Victor thinks that is a bad thing. Because Spielberg showed me the way it is? Truth is stranger than fiction? Well, truth is also stronger than fiction.
Victor tell us that the opening sequence plays on emotions. Well, he has yet to identify what emotions he is referring to. And why is appealing to emotions a bad thing? Wizard of Oz appealed to emotions. And I am proud to say I love the film.
***Clearly Victor, for whatever reason, is refusing to address the fact that WWII vets vouch for the veracity of the landing sceneWell, the reason is quite simple, really, and it is that it has nothing to do with the film's merits.
This is what I meant by shamelessly speculating on strong emotions.
There are things that are rightly considered no-no's in making of fine movies. Showing a cute child or a dog are among them. And also - what Spielberg does.
Let me illustrate this with an example. Let's say I decided to make a movie depicting the life of a little Jewish girl, the last days of it, from the time her family was rounded up and to the gas chamber.
If I stayed reasonably close to the truth of the subject (would not be all that hard to do), I would know the film would stir **extremely** strong emotions in Holocaust survivers and members of their families. It would need not be any artistic revelation, just have no obvious irritating elements or serious faults - and it would grab the public' attention.
In fact, it might even assure a reasonable shot at Oscars.
Now, to make a movie that grabs the viewer by examiling a seemingly primitive, simple, small or insignificant subject is an entirely different matter. THAT takes a master.
Look at Nights of Cabiria. A few days in life of a low class Roman hooker. And Fellini manages to create the emotional masterpiece that can completely stand on its own feet, and will continue to do so for centuries, probably.
What Fellini does in that movie is completely absent in SPR. And one can conclude further that great masters most of the time avoided Earth shattering events in ther work, as these tend to overshadow the artistic, creative side of their work. And yes, there ARE a few exceptions. But mostly Chardins paited their self-portraits and their servant girls.
Great masters just don't speculate on strong emotions and cute kids. For that is truly Spielberg's territory, the land of a movie BUSINESSMAN, where he is the King. He started with showing teenagers being swallowed by shark, and apparently he never left that paradigm.
He most likely has reached the level of his incompetence. He will never give us another Bicycle Thief for the simple reason... that he can't.
Looks like the film forum isn't yer private kitty litter box
anymore.Gas bag.
YECH
?
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 ]
