DVDfile.com forum for DVD, Blu-Ray, and HD-DVD - View Single Post

05-29-2000, 02:56 PM

Well morpho, you're entitled to it but it doesn't do you any favours

My point stands - The majority of people don't understand about conventions of realism. They are not prepared to approach a media-text in an analytical light, are certainly in no position to say whether something is "realistic" or not, unable to engage with the film on an intellectual or aesthetic level. It is a FILM. it is FICTION up on a two-dimensional screen. Therefore, it is not real, it cannot be real, it is a construction from the mind of Spielberg and maybe some of the people who worked on the film, and should be treated as such.

Indeed, there is an argument to be made that WW2 veterans are in a singularly bad position to judge the film, being so close to the subject matter as to have lost any sense of objective judgement. So the opening scene is gory with a big budget and lots of handheld camera to throw you into the action. And this triggered some memories - so what? Is this what cinema is supposed to be, viceral action sequences for people to jerk off to, "now, I have experienced it for myself...", making out like the movie is a holy experience which cannot be questioned. What on earth does this have to do with the quality of the film as a whole? The opening was nicely executed, but the message of the film was dubious, the characterization poor, the photography for the most part dull, the damned "plot" an endless tirade of true Hollywood cliches both narrative and moral.

"As far as Mallick's visuals covering up his cliches, well that's just not a very well thought out comment." Yep. As I endlessly have to point out, the characters may SPEAK in occassional cliches, they are characters considering some of the fundamentals of life in simple terms, but crucially their thoughts are not supported or disavowed by the film, they conflict with each other, give no overriding message of "what to believe". These thoughts are simply there, like the grass is there, the trees, the vines, the guns. hus, the film ITSELF is not cliched.

For instance, Lt. Cl. Tall. In many ways he could be seen as the "bad guy" of the piece, but Malick gives us plenty of opportunity to understand him as a person(unlike the ridiculous German who grinds the blade into the jew at the end of SPR). We see the pressure put on him by the Generals, feel his sense of career and status, there is even one moment where he almost breaks down in tears with the force of the emotions he is supressing. Most importantly, it is Tall who voices a crucial interpretation of events within the film that differs with a lot of the voiceovers from the more inexperienced soilders - that nature is cruel. The shots of natural "beauty" at the beginning of the film (a crocodile, vines suffocating trees) are infact photographs of war on a different scale. Thus, Malick questions are interpretation of beauty, evil, pain. And this relativity is what the film is all about. Take the baby bird seen during an early battle in the film. There is line later on that goes something like "one man looks at a dying bird and sees nothing but pain, another man looks and he sees the glory". This baby bird is a perfect example of this - some viewers look at the bird, see it as writhing in it's death throws. Others see it as an image of a baby bird that's just been born, struggling to take its first steps into the world.

Ultimately, this means is that what you bring to the film is what you will get out of it. Unlike Spielberg, Malick doesn't tell you what to think, doesn't fit everything nicely into a cliched story where there is right and wrong, a clear beginning and an end, an easy message to the parable. He doesnt seek to fill the audience with patriotic, righteous, moral emotion. Cheap, playing to the rable. And he is confrontational in this stance - look at the bitter attack on the Hollywood star system present in George Clooney's cameo. It's a suprise Clooney didn't murder Malick after that one.

05-29-2000, 02:56 PM	#12 (permalink)
maha vishnu	Well morpho, you're entitled to it but it doesn't do you any favours My point stands - The majority of people don't understand about conventions of realism. They are not prepared to approach a media-text in an analytical light, are certainly in no position to say whether something is "realistic" or not, unable to engage with the film on an intellectual or aesthetic level. It is a FILM. it is FICTION up on a two-dimensional screen. Therefore, it is not real, it cannot be real, it is a construction from the mind of Spielberg and maybe some of the people who worked on the film, and should be treated as such. Indeed, there is an argument to be made that WW2 veterans are in a singularly bad position to judge the film, being so close to the subject matter as to have lost any sense of objective judgement. So the opening scene is gory with a big budget and lots of handheld camera to throw you into the action. And this triggered some memories - so what? Is this what cinema is supposed to be, viceral action sequences for people to jerk off to, "now, I have experienced it for myself...", making out like the movie is a holy experience which cannot be questioned. What on earth does this have to do with the quality of the film as a whole? The opening was nicely executed, but the message of the film was dubious, the characterization poor, the photography for the most part dull, the damned "plot" an endless tirade of true Hollywood cliches both narrative and moral. "As far as Mallick's visuals covering up his cliches, well that's just not a very well thought out comment." Yep. As I endlessly have to point out, the characters may SPEAK in occassional cliches, they are characters considering some of the fundamentals of life in simple terms, but crucially their thoughts are not supported or disavowed by the film, they conflict with each other, give no overriding message of "what to believe". These thoughts are simply there, like the grass is there, the trees, the vines, the guns. hus, the film ITSELF is not cliched. For instance, Lt. Cl. Tall. In many ways he could be seen as the "bad guy" of the piece, but Malick gives us plenty of opportunity to understand him as a person(unlike the ridiculous German who grinds the blade into the jew at the end of SPR). We see the pressure put on him by the Generals, feel his sense of career and status, there is even one moment where he almost breaks down in tears with the force of the emotions he is supressing. Most importantly, it is Tall who voices a crucial interpretation of events within the film that differs with a lot of the voiceovers from the more inexperienced soilders - that nature is cruel. The shots of natural "beauty" at the beginning of the film (a crocodile, vines suffocating trees) are infact photographs of war on a different scale. Thus, Malick questions are interpretation of beauty, evil, pain. And this relativity is what the film is all about. Take the baby bird seen during an early battle in the film. There is line later on that goes something like "one man looks at a dying bird and sees nothing but pain, another man looks and he sees the glory". This baby bird is a perfect example of this - some viewers look at the bird, see it as writhing in it's death throws. Others see it as an image of a baby bird that's just been born, struggling to take its first steps into the world. Ultimately, this means is that what you bring to the film is what you will get out of it. Unlike Spielberg, Malick doesn't tell you what to think, doesn't fit everything nicely into a cliched story where there is right and wrong, a clear beginning and an end, an easy message to the parable. He doesnt seek to fill the audience with patriotic, righteous, moral emotion. Cheap, playing to the rable. And he is confrontational in this stance - look at the bitter attack on the Hollywood star system present in George Clooney's cameo. It's a suprise Clooney didn't murder Malick after that one.