28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

Exactly. It's not that kind of movie.

It's like a game. There are games like D&D that explore the characters, dramatic choices, and narrative impact. Then there are games like Advance Squad Leader which is a game of tactics and strategy completely removed from character.

BHD is the ASL of movies. It barely has characters at all. They aren't important. Their names and emotions are not important.

Obviously it's approach is not universally appreciated, and that's OK.

Did I say it should have more fleshed out characters? No, I said it shouldn't be propagandistic shit.

[Qrazy]

That's a terrible attitude. No film should do anything except for what it sets out to do. A film should be judged for what it is, not for what someone thinks it should be.

Wrong. I'm not going to endorse Yoko Ono's Fly because it did exactly what it attempted to do, which was to have a fly crawl slowly across a woman's naked body for 25 minutes. The concept behind a film is as worthy of criticism as the film's execution.

In fact the vast majority of films fail not because they are formally incompetent but because they are thoughtless.

[Derek]

Wrong. I'm not going to endorse Yoko Ono's Fly because it did exactly what it attempted to do, which was to have a fly crawl slowly across a woman's naked body for 25 minutes. The concept behind a film is as worthy of criticism as the film's execution.

Hold off on making any judgments until you know what woman's naked body.

[Derek]

I expect a good film to say something of interest or value. You are arguing that this film doesn't even attempt that. That does not earn it any points in it's favor in my book.

It should try to be more than that.

Anyway, it is more than that. There's a fair amount of political commentary in the film, it's just not very insightful.

I agree with this. I haven't seen it since theaters, but while it is was technically dazzling at times, I remember it laying the propaganda on pretty thick.

[Qrazy]

Hold off on making any judgments until you know what woman's naked body.

I've seen the film. It's a waste of space.

[D_Davis]

Did I say it should have more fleshed out characters? No, I said it shouldn't be propagandistic shit.

Yes, you did.

It's not about exploring the nature of combat or the effect it has on men who engage in combat or why we engage in combat in the first place or the kind of men who engage in combat, etc.

That's all character stuff right there.

[Winston*]

That's a terrible attitude. No film should do anything except for what it sets out to do. A film should be judged for what it is, not for what someone thinks it should be.

So if one wants to criticise Triumph of the Will it has to be in terms of effective it is in glorifying the Third Reich?

[D_Davis]

So if one wants to criticise Triumph of the Will it has to be in terms of effective it is in glorifying the Third Reich?

I've never seen it, so I have no idea what it is about or what it is trying to do.

[D_Davis]

In fact the vast majority of films fail not because they are formally incompetent but because they are thoughtless.

Judging something on its thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness is not the same as judging something based on what you think it should be.

[Ezee E]

With that, if you disagree, what is the best military movie of the 2000's?

[Qrazy]

Yes, you did.

It's not about exploring the nature of combat or the effect it has on men who engage in combat or why we engage in combat in the first place or the kind of men who engage in combat, etc.

That's all character stuff right there.

The disjunction 'Or' is a sentential connective. It is true if and only if at least one of its disjuncts is true. If I had said 'and' rather than 'or' then I would be suggesting/requiring all of the above in the film. Whereas what I did say was that here are a series of things the film could be doing (take your pick as to which) to be as you say, 'about the combat situation'. As it stands I do not find it to be 'about the combat situation' because it has little to say about the situation. Simply as a point of argument, although I would not argue in favor of it's usage, a Godardian essayistic monologue/voiceover could achieve any of the above points without needing to flesh out the characters in the film via narrative backstory.

Anyway, I do not believe the film to be a realistic depiction (nor should it strive to be) of combat because it is much too aesthetically contrived (in the ways in which I noted earlier).

[Winston*]

I've never seen it, so I have no idea what it is about or what it is trying to do.

My point is that you more or less remove the option to criticise a film on political grounds, which is a problem when you're talking about a widely released film made about a foreign conflict in the midst of another foreign conflict.

[Winston*]

With that, if you disagree, what is the best military movie of the 2000's?

Bloody Sunday.

[Qrazy]

Judging something on its thoughtfulness or thoughtlessness is not the same as judging something based on what you think it should be.

I'm not saying it should be a musical here, I'm saying that trying to be a film about combat in isolation only from one side of the fence is an artistic mistake.

I'll repost someone else's review because I share (some of) their sentiments.

"Ridley Scott said that he wanted to make a war movie separate from the politics. (But) trying to make a war movie without politics is essentially impossible; (because) war is simply the continuation of politics by other means... what Ridley Scott made with Black Hawk Down is a war movie that affirms the dominant (i.e., the US) political point of view.

In Black Hawk Down, all the US soldiers are as good as can be. They care about their children and their families, and the underlying music supporting them is violins and the orchestra. There is little explanation of why the US is intervening in an internal civil conflict in a foreign nation. What little there is, the logic thereof could be dismantled by a six year old. At one point, US General Garrison asserts that the 300,000 people killed in the Somali conflict isn't war, it is genocide, and that is what justifies US military intervention. The US killed 600,000 of its own citizens in its Civil War. Should the dominant superpowers of the 1800s (the British and French Empires) have intervened in the US Civil War, to "save" the Americans from themselves? When the US soldiers die, everyone has pursed lips and fierce expressions; they know to be somber because one of THE GOOD GUYS is gone.

In contrast, the Somalis are about as bad as can be. They point and shout and fire their AK-47s in the air, they wear bandannas and masks and dark sunglasses, and are depicted as little more than black monkey children engaging in mob behavior. The underlying Somali music is detuned heavy metal guitar - as if you couldn't already tell that they were THE BAD GUYS. There is little to no exploration of the Somali point of view. When the Somalis die, that's it. It's like a video game. Some bodies fall, and more bodies step up to take their place. They're all expendable, and no one sheds a single tear for any of the "skinnies."

Of course, the idea that Scott tries to get across is that actual combat is NOT about politics; that it's about the man to your left and the man to your right, fighting to stay alive, and nothing more. But the natural question is, why is he fighting? Why is he killing? What about the man on the other side of the gun? Is he also fighting just for his comrades? Is it for something more than mere survival, self-defense? If so, what is that reason? What is that ideology? Thus the assertion that war can be divorced from politics is revealed as the basest of intellectual dishonesty.

The film is thus little more than cotton candy for that segment of the American populace that feels that its brave military can do no wrong; that it can "support the troops" even if they don't agree with the administration commanding those same troops. Similar thoughts were harbored by the citizens of other empires that exist now only in history books; the British, the French, the Prussian, the Roman, the Greek. Perhaps most damning is the production history of the movie itself - Scott had to involve the US DoD to borrow many of the pieces of military hardware used in the movie, and was only able to secure approval once the DoD was satisfied that the film portrayed the events in a positive (read: propagandistic) light.

From a purely technical point of view, the film is a tour de force. The sound of gunfire, the force of explosions, the chaos of urban infantry combat, it's all captured here by Scott in cinema verité/faux documentary style. I'm surprised he did it all on a fairly modest budget of $100M. Neither Scott nor his brother (Tony Scott, of Top Gun and Crimson Tide fame) lack for style or special effects. In this respect, it meets and surpasses the work that Steven Spielberg showcased in his war movie, Saving Private Ryan. For that, and that alone, the film receives a lone star.

But this isn't some brainless Saturday night special about explosions and gunfire. It's about war, one of the most frightening, destructive, and terrible acts that humans can engage in. And to try and present it merely as some sort of "ode to soldiers" without examining the reasons for the war is jingoistic at best and dangerous at worst.

The last war that the US had causus belli, or just cause, to fight, was WWII. At least in that conflict, the US remained neutral until it was attacked. Even then, the US is still the only nation in history to use weapons of mass destruction, dropping atomic bombs on civilian targets with no advance warning.

By comparison, this operation in Mogadishu is little more than another US imperialist adventure gone awry, whitewashed into glorious military history some nine years after the fact. It reminds one of the saying, 'A legend is merely a lie, that has attained the dignity of age.'"

[Derek]

Disregarding the Tony Scott stuff for a second, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on these. I very recently watched After Death, which I liked just a little less than you, and I'm glad to see I'm not alone in thinking Twilight of a Woman's Soul is weaker in comparison. Have you seen Her Sister's Rival (aka A Life for a Life)?

There's still a lot to like about Twilight of a Woman's Soul. For 1913, it's remarkably complex structurally and the way it transfers the guilt and shame of Vera after being raped to the prince once he regrets turning her away when she tells him of her past is technically impressive and emotionally and thematically gratifying. That said, there are several stretches, particularly at the beginning that are relatively bland compared to the other two.

After Death impressed me most - the best pre-1920s film aside from Les Vampires IMO. Here, Bauer truly perfects the compression of time to achieve maximum dramatic effect, split-second decisions are quickly met with their dire and deadly consequences (love blossoms and turns destructive almost simultaneously), which is perfectly in line his fascination with the thin line between love and death. The elliptical editing is almost disorienting at times, but the drastic distance, both temporally and emotionally, between shots matches the otherworldy feverish passion that overtakes Zoya and ultimately Andrei. The long zoom into the close up of Zoya's face after her performance and the extended reverse zoom/pan at the party where they meet are years ahead of its time, yet both are stylistic devices that further develop the emotions on display rather than technical wizardry for its own sake.

I have similar praise for The Dying Swan, though it's a bit more sentimental and the painter character isn't as seemlessly integrated into the plot as everyone in After Death, however Bauer uses a similar structure to the one in Twilight... with the transferrence of guilt leading Gizella away from Victor and ultimately towards the artist and death itself.

These are the first 3 films I've seen from him, but I am psyched to check out more. How is Her Sister's Rival?

[Irish]

Wow, great discussion. I kinda wish, though, that you guys had picked a better movie to talk about. :lol:

And now, as I find myself agreeing with Qrazy for the second time in as many weeks, I must go throw myself off a bridge.

[soitgoes...]

There's still a lot to like about Twilight of a Woman's Soul. For 1913, it's remarkably complex structurally and the way it transfers the guilt and shame of Vera after being raped to the prince once he regrets turning her away when she tells him of her past is technically impressive and emotionally and thematically gratifying. That said, there are several stretches, particularly at the beginning that are relatively bland compared to the other two.

After Death impressed me most - the best pre-1920s film aside from Les Vampires IMO. Here, Bauer truly perfects the compression of time to achieve maximum dramatic effect, split-second decisions are quickly met with their dire and deadly consequences (love blossoms and turns destructive almost simultaneously), which is perfectly in line his fascination with the thin line between love and death. The elliptical editing is almost disorienting at times, but the drastic distance, both temporally and emotionally, between shots matches the otherworldy feverish passion that overtakes Zoya and ultimately Andrei. The long zoom into the close up of Zoya's face after her performance and the extended reverse zoom/pan at the party where they meet are years ahead of its time, yet both are stylistic devices that further develop the emotions on display rather than technical wizardry for its own sake.

I have similar praise for The Dying Swan, though it's a bit more sentimental and the painter character isn't as seemlessly integrated into the plot as everyone in After Death, however Bauer uses a similar structure to the one in Twilight... with the transferrence of guilt leading Gizella away from Victor and ultimately towards the artist and death itself.

These are the first 3 films I've seen from him, but I am psyched to check out more. How is Her Sister's Rival?

I tend to agree with pretty much everything you said here, though I prefer The Dying Swan a touch more than After Death (splitting hairs). His finest film though is probably Daydreams. He's far and away the most interesting filmmaker in the teens outside of Griffith and Feuillade.

[Qrazy]

With that, if you disagree, what is the best military movie of the 2000's?

I don't know but your question pushed me into finding this film which I now have and will watch soon.

Pretty Village, Pretty Flame.

[Qrazy]

Black Rain (Scott) - Well that was pretty shitty.

Fucking Ridley Scott mother fucker.

[Irish]

Black Rain (Scott) - Well that was pretty shitty.

Fucking Ridley Scott mother fucker.

Yeah, I feel slightly guilty for not warning you about that, but I was caught up in the BHD talk.

For fun, make a night of it -- watch Rising Sun and Year of the Dragon next, for a sort of weirdly racist Asian gang movie night.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I feel slightly guilty for not warning you about that, but I was caught up in the BHD talk.

For fun, make a night of it -- watch Rising Sun and Year of the Dragon next, for a sort of weirdly racist Asian gang movie night.

Year of the Dragon is in my sig. :lol:

I guess I could see Rising Sun. I have seen Pollack's The Yakuza though. I wonder if he's the one who started this trend? That was probably the best of the three I've seen, presumably because it was made in the 70's and they did things better back then.

[Irish]

Year of the Dragon is in my sig. :lol:

I guess I could see Rising Sun. I have seen Pollack's The Yakuza though. I wonder if he's the one who started this trend? That was probably the best of the three I've seen, presumably because it was made in the 70's and they did things better back then.

:lol: So it is. I have sig-related blindness.

I think the difference between Pollack's piece & the others is that they were all released in the mid to late 80s (Rising Sun was 93, but the book was popular and was published years before).

There was a huge anti-Japanese sentiment floating around, so we got all these weirdly racist movies. The cultural climate around the time Yakuza hit the screens was different.

Edit: Don't watch Rising Sun for anything outside its unintentional comedic value. It's a terrible movie.

Going pretty much on looks, because the content is terrible:

Year of the Dragon > Black Rain > Rising Sun

[soitgoes...]

What the fuck is wrong with you two? This "civility" isn't fooling anyone.

[angrycinephile]

The underlying Somali music is detuned heavy metal guitar - as if you couldn't already tell that they were THE BAD GUYS.

Even Hans Zimmer himself has talked about how his music was changed and rearranged during the editing process - presumably after 9/11. Zimmer actually wrote the heavy guitar riffing theme for the American troops since his approach was that the more modern music (i.e. electric guitars and techno/electronica) would accompany the American armies while the Somali soldiers would be accompanied by African vocals and instruments.

"While Zimmer intended for the Americans to be represented by the heaviest music, the scene in which the convoy of helicopters approaches the coast is switched so that the shots of rioting civilians are given the bombast while the choppers are treated to silence."

"I love african music. Black Hawk Down, which in Europe everybody thinks is some sort of American fascist statement, I tried to do exactly the opposite with the music, I tried to give Africa a voice in this, so it wouldn’t be just the voice of the soldiers and I was the counterpoint very much, for Ridley as well, so much so that at one point the studio said "You’re letting the wrong guys win" - Hans Zimmer.

[D_Davis]

My point is that you more or less remove the option to criticise a film on political grounds, which is a problem when you're talking about a widely released film made about a foreign conflict in the midst of another foreign conflict.

Not at all. If a film is about politics, or is political, then critique its politics.