 
|
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: We Were Soldiers posted by twisted on March 01, 2002 at 20:04:03:
I can't WAIT until we this fad run's it's course.How it will all fit into film history, I can only guess...but for some it's going to be very embarassing, and the films themselves, just won't stand up to the classics.
While it's a generally denigrated film genre to begin with, there is NOTHING here now that's going to be produced, in it's current form, that will stand the test of time. Hopefully.
It will sell alot of popcorn and nachos with cheese, but that's about it.
I saw "Rocky" for the first time in twenty or so years the other day. My first viewing of the film in it's theatrical release, was in Brooklyn on a Saturday night, in a packed movie theater.
The film stands up as one of those classic, because it has all those things...including the "backstory" that makes it singular and special.
I can't separate the non-backstory of these patriotic films with the seemless and overt manipulation for no apparent purpose other than to make money. Go figure.
Follow Ups:
I haven't seen the film, but I read a couple of articles about it. First, unlike the attempted weepy, cheesey "Pearl Harbor," this film apparently is a fairly straight realization of a book of similar title by one of the ground commanders in the battle depicted and a professional journalist.The producer/director bought the rights because he thought it was a story that should be told -- unlike the rest of the Vietnam War films, such as "Full Metal Jacket," "Platoon" and "Apoclypse Now," which reflected a post-1970 view of the conflict.
The fact is that the 1964 escalation of the Vietnam War was the apotheosis of the "bear any burden, pay any price in defense of freedom" rhetoric of JFK's 1960 inaugural address. The conflict was entered into with what now seems a strange mixture of idealism, ignorance and hubris. I suppose any film made today that attempts to depict that sensibility is condemned to be slammed as "revisionist."
I have no interest in the question of whether a film will stand up as a "classic." The answer to that question is unknowable to those living in the present. And the fact is, that the term "classic" falsely implies some timeless positive judgment about a work of art. Yet anyone who studies music or literature or art history quickly learns that, over time, certain styles and certain artists/composers/writers fall in and out of fashion. Frankly, it strikes me as almost silly for people to use the term "classic" with respect to any work in an artform that is less than 100 years old. It seems to me that a judgment about what is "classic" can only be made by audiences who are well removed in time from those who experienced the work when it was first released. No audience today can say that about any talking picture.
It seems to me that the most we can say about any film today is that it does-- or does not-- succeed in being convicing on its terms. And it seems to me with respect to this kind of film, that judgment has to be made apart from whatever judgment the viewer has about the value of the Vietnam War, war as an instrument of policy, or war at all.
Just out of curiousity -- I can't tell from your post if you have actually SEEN the movie. I suspect not. It's actually very good.Doug Schneider
Sorry to disappoint you...I did see the movie.
That's fine...it certainly doesn't disappoint me...but your original post actually mentions nothing in the film or seeing the film so that seemed like a gap.Doug Schneider
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 ]
