BrianKagy: I don't believe that it should be *prohibited*. I simply think directors should act responsibly. I realize you're a smart guy, and you're not going to take Pearl Harbor seriously. But the same isn't true for everyone. 7 year olds are going to have their personal beliefs and conceptions of history formed by movies such as this. It also really bothered me when Disney turned Victor Hugo's masterpiece into an insipid musical comedy (Hunchback). Concerning The American President... I actually didn't like that movie. However, I don't mind it if a movie shows a coherent, political opinion. I want the opinion to be responsibly presented, based in some sort of coherent framework, and consistent. PH was none of these things. Take the movie Traffic for instance... there was *definitely* a political stance to its take on the drug war, but it was well-done, and even those who disagreed generally felt that it was an *argument* that the viewer could accept or reject. On a conservative note, I really dislike Ayn Rand, but I believe she wrote responsibly. Her book were uniformly conservative, but I could reject them without believing them to be invalid. PH was simply invalid. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
BK: Another target they put on their back was the fact that they openly commented on how they wanted to be true to the veterans they were supposedly portraying and the battle itself which is why they opened it on Memorial Day. IMO, that is just using the holiday as a promotional vehicle. I agree that we shouldn't really expect much from Hollywood. It is rare that they make a film that is really worthwhile for something other than just entertainment and even that is dubious most times. ------------------ The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. - Futurama
Jeff, no argument there re: the Memorial Day tie-in. Haven, what exactly do you think people will take away from seeing Pearl Harbor that's incorrect? What will the movie make them think that they shouldn't think...? I agree that a good argument can be made that the Roosevelt administration knew an attack was likely, and it can be argued that FDR acted in a brazen way in order to force the country into a war that Congress would never have approved sans Pearl Harbor. But... is it the place of movies to tell all sides of a story? I raised "The American President" for just that reason. They wanted Douglas' character to be the consummate good guy, fragile and human and consumed with innate goodness. In order to build him up as such, they had to make his opponents the lowest of the low (which given Reiner's political leanings was probably not an unpleasant task for him). Pearl Harbor's supposed to be a story of heroism, not an exploration of the geopolitical machinations that led to WWII. I don't see the problem here. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited May 29, 2001).]
Kagy, Im not trying to be your enemy, man, but please explain why you chose to use jamcrackers name to make your point about pearl harbor when the guy hasnt even posted in the thread yet? BTW, If it's any comfort to you, I agree that the movie shouldnt be judged on its historical correctness alone, but also on its entertainment value. But even so, I still didnt care for that part of the movie either. In a word, I wasnt all that entertained or inspired. ------------------ I am an invisible man.
My only comment would be that The American President was a fictional movie that was not based on true events and didn't attempt to pass itself off as a true story. When a fictional story includes true events or is based on truth, often people tend to like the film to be as historically accurate as possible. People do shape their views of history based on popular movies. There are people who believe that since the sinking of the Titanic was an actual event that the things presented in the movie of Titanic were also all true events. There are people who strongly believe that every event presented in the movie Mississippi Burning is absolutely true. So, when a filmmaker inserts fiction into a real life event, he opens himself up to this kind of criticism. Personally, I think it's the fault of the viewer that they often cannot separate the fiction from the fact in movies like Pearl Harbor, Mississippi Burning, Titanic or any of the scores of other such films. I don't think filmmakers have any responsibility beyond telling a good story and putting together a good movie. If they mix history and fiction, it's up to me, the viewer, to find out what is truth and what is fiction. These are movies, not documentaries. Movies are always fantasies. To me, what Michael Bay has done with Pearl Harbor is no different than what Mark Illsley did with Happy, Texas (the Happy, Texas from the movie of the same name is nothing like the Happy, Texas that I've been to), etc. P.S. I still say Kiefer Sutherland is a worse actor than Keanu Reeves. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited May 29, 2001).]
Shanna: The majority of scholars think he knew. At the very least, it should have been dealt with. But that's pigeon-holing my argument. Other faults are irrefutable: FDR's wheelchair scenes, the time of day of the attack (it was at 7am, kids wouldn't have been playing baseball), the semi-racism directed at the Japanese... it was all too much. That letter they read... wasn't representative of Japense people as a whole. It was a deliberate choice to show the WORST side of the Japanese, and the best side of Americans. There are certain issues you can't just "sort of" deal with, as well. Racism, war-trauma, etc... need to be dealt with in a responsible manner. I had the impression the director was just throwing different pieces into a pot in hopes of jerking people's chains. That's wrong. If you're just going to make a fun shoot-em-up movie... that's one thing. But he tried to tackle certain issues, made light of them, and that's not right. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
mrpaige, I would rather watch every movie Kiefer Sutherland has ever been in end to end, then watch ONE Keanu Reeves movie. ------------------ DREAMer's Rocket Page
Tacoma: Nope, I've just read "Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged." I thought both were contrived, conservative propoganda . mrpaige: I think that people have responsibility to go along with free speech. While I would never advocate censorship, it does frustrate me that people advance ideas irresponsibly. When you create a movie, you're creating a cultural legacy... that's going to affect the way many people think, directly or indirectly. Are you familiar with "New Historicism?" New Historical scholars attempt to examine old novels/history texts, etc, for the cultural work that they create, as well as the culture they reflect. The findings have been striking: many books and movies, etc, have truly changed culture. This, to me, demands responsibility and restraint. ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Just so you know Haven, she was Russian and left her country because of communism when she was 19 I believe. Also, she was atheist. I'm not sure how these aspects of her life may have affected the tone of her work, but they are just some interesting things to take into account. ------------------
When they ignore the probability that our leadership knew about the attack, they're perpetuating the American myth of our perfect innocence and naivety. They didn't do this. They showed that portions of our leadership knew about it, and were ignored by higher-ups. It made the Americans look like dumbasses for not being prepared, in my opinion. I admire FDR... but he probably knew. So since some people think he might have known, we should portray that as fact? If he knew, you'd think he would have alerted our military an hour in advance. That way, they'd be ready and we'd have not been blown to bits. We'd still be at war since Japan attacked us and the American public would still be pissed, except we'd have a big advantage in that half our Pacific military wasn't blown to crap. The only difference would have been instead of saving "Japan surprise attacked us", we'd say "Japan attempted to surpirse attack us". ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
I've never had a harder time reviewing a movie. That's why I haven't done it yet (not too smart, I know). I walked out of the movie, much the same way I walked out of Titanic. As cheesy as the story was, there was something about both movies that stayed with me. It affected me. It was all I could think about that night, and I was sure it would last until the next day, much like Titanic. However, it didn't. I needed to see Titanic again in the next few days. I'm not sure what it was, and it's definitely faded since then, but that's how I felt. Not so here. With Pearl Harbor, I think I'm more upset with what could've been rather than what was. Titanic, to me, couldn't have been done much better. What would've been more interesting? From the designer's point of view? From the captain's? Maybe, but not too much. Pearl Harbor, on the other hand, could have been so much better. Why not focus the entire story on Cuba Gooding Jr.'s character? You could've had the very powerful bombing scene (excluding some of the crappy dialouge, the cook, for example, saying "son of a b****" right before the bomb exploded in the Arizona), and people still would've found it interesting. Much better than a very poorly done love story. As for the racism, I just didn't see it. I thought they did a good job of showing how the Japanese felt that bombing Pearl Harbor was something that they had to do in order to survive. The film didn't make them look any more ruthless than the Americans in my opinion, just smarter. I also didn't mind the glorification of war that seemed to be prevelant in the movie. I think it mirrored how people were in those days. They bombed us, we were going to fight back, we were gung ho about it. We had a clear enemy who had bombed our country (or our territory) and killed our soldiers, I hope we'd act the same if that happened today. 4 stars for bombing scene, 1.5 for the rest. ------------------ www.swirve.com "Pre-born, you're fine, pre-school, you're f*****."-George Carlin
We'll just have to disagree on these points then because I just don't see it the same way. One could indict every movie for distorting reality. Making things that aren't real is what the movie industry is all about. I don't see where a filmmaker should have a responsibility to the audience other than making an entertaining movie. Of course movies and TV shows change culture. We see such changes all the time. We see fictional movies that were never meant to be taken as historical fact change culture. We often view things filtered through the fictional TV shows and movies. But filmmakers can never show the world exactly the way it is. If we want moviemakers to simply parrot the real world, we'll not be able to have any TV shows or movies at all. So, it becomes a question of where the line is drawn. When is it okay to distort reality for dramatic purposes and when is it not okay? Is it okay to make Happy, Texas into a place that is nothing like the real Happy, Texas in order to make a more entertaining movie, but not okay to make the Titanic sinking a better movie by making up a love story that never existed? Is Robert Zemeckis irresponsible for presenting a present where time travel by way of a Delorean exists? Was Stanley Kubrick irresponsible for presenting a 2001 that is far different from the 2001 in which we live? And who decides what is responsible distortion and what isn't? I just don't think we can complain about one movie playing fast and loose with reality and not complain about nearly every movie since nearly all movies present a distorted view of reality. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
A little late, I know...but, I am not going to see this. I did not see Saving Private Ryan until one night when I had insomnia and it was on cable at 1 AM. Anyway, thought it was a big crapfest, thus, I have no interest. I think that it is disgusting that when you walk into a bookstore, they have a whole display wing with Pearl Harbor movie posters and books about it that have either already been published or were rushed in to coincide with the release. Same thinkg happened with Titanic. We are so stupid we have to have Hollywood dictate what our research interests should be. Ugh... ------------------ "You sanctimonious philistines, who scoff at me!"
Rocketman95 thinks he is the movie expert or something, but I agree with his ratings. ------------------ It's my way or the highway!
i saw it today, i think it was pretty good. the love story was a lil to much for me ------------------ i am my own worst enemy!
I think Kiefer saved Young Guns 2. ------------------ "norm, would you like to buy an indian scalp ? This deal isn't gonna make or break me Norm, so don't jerk me around." Harry Carey "Norm, if I had a mohawk scalp, I wouldn't be sitting here talking to you."
I can't think of Kiefer Sutherland without remembering that my little sister is obsessed with his nose. She thinks he has the most attractive nose on the planet. Go figure... I don't look at peoples noses . ------------------ A few years back on the Senate floor... Phil Gramm: "If Democrats could, they'd tax the air we breathe." Ted Kennedy (jumping up): "By God, why didn't I think of that sooner!" Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Alrighty... my two cents. I personally thought Titanic was a great movie. I've been resarching information on the Titanic for nearly 20 years, and I can say that the documented history was very well portrayed. Didn't necessarily care about the fictional love story, because it was concocted. My largest complaint is that the producer's know that these are great stories. Why do they always feel a "love story" will tear at our heart strings? Isn't the history enough?!? I'm just tired of it, is all. ------------------ "I never did like that "Dr. Stupid""-Monty Burns
