Flags of Our Fathers & Letters from Iwo Jima (Clint Eastwood, 2007)
-
lord_clyde
- Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 8:22 am
- Location: Ogden, UT
-
toiletduck!
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:43 pm
- Location: The 'Go
- Contact:
-
The Invunche
- Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:43 am
- Location: Denmark
-
tryavna
- Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 8:38 pm
- Location: North Carolina
True, and I didn't mean to downplay Nanking, etc. I was just thinking in terms of the significance of the word "holocaust" itself (as in the Holocaust and the idea of a "Nuclear Holocaust").The Invunche wrote:Hiroshima and Nagasaki weren't the biggest killers of Japanese during the war. The fire bombings of the large cities especially Tokyo were much worse. And all of it pales in comparison next to what the Japanese did themselves from '37 to '45.
-
Greathinker
Haven't read one reply on here but I need to voice my opinion after watching this. Clint bit off more than he could chew-- I wouldn't have thought a director like he could take such a potentially interesting story and turn it into something more by-the-numbers, stereotypical, and boring.
The biggest problem I have is that the film is constantly filtering what it thinks WWII was like through some kaleidoscope of overused hollywood trademarks, for lack of a better description. Aside from a few of the battle set pieces, never once did I believe I was looking into the war, or America during the 40's. Starting with the desaturated private ryan look-- which sounds ok in theory, because of resemblance to old photographs blah blah, but with all the FX shots and uncreative framing it comes off as looking more like one of the battles from the Lord of the Rings. I keep thinking, how many more times are they going to repeat this visual look? And how interesting it would be to see it reversed, with a brighter saturated palette more akin to Gangs of New York?
But beyond that I felt like Clint was fumbling around with images and scenarios that he didn't understand. I actually think his attempts to shock with the many self-conscious death shots work against him. Decapitated heads, stray limbs, these images are reinforcing a hollywood standard that is putting a tired, and detached attitude into the publics subconscious. It doesn't matter if they're initially shocking (they weren't for me), for anyone who has seen films like this these images come and go as if they were never there. The lack of any staying power turns it into more of a genre film than a film about WAR. It's inevitable for filmmakers these days to mess up on this aspect, but they can at least try to be innovative instead of going through the motions. Bergman and Tarkovsky talked about how tremendous a challenge it would be to take on a war film. I checked out Malick's film from the library recently and I'm eager to see how he handles it-- but in general it's undoubtedly filmmaking's weak spot. Artists are drawn to its spectacle and emotions for obvious reasons but in the end it only reveals inadequacy.
The screenplay was horrible. I imagine they opened up a book of WWII solider rhetoric and threw some of that in when their characters had nothing of their own to say. Filling in the gaps are either predictable developments or manipulative jabs to keep the audience engaged-- how many absurdities towards the Indian were there? Speaking of his character, could they have taken the typical post-traumatic stress disorder and infused it with some originality? Let's have him take to drinking, and then have reoccurring flashbacks--that should do it. Everything, and I mean just about everything, not in the least which is the casting, comes off as average or just passable. It's too bad I'm thinking about things like this rather than what it must have been like to go home early during the war and tour around like a cheerleader. I'm becoming more and more baffled by what the public is deeming as important. I may give Letters a chance, if only to see if it can redeem what I just saw.
The biggest problem I have is that the film is constantly filtering what it thinks WWII was like through some kaleidoscope of overused hollywood trademarks, for lack of a better description. Aside from a few of the battle set pieces, never once did I believe I was looking into the war, or America during the 40's. Starting with the desaturated private ryan look-- which sounds ok in theory, because of resemblance to old photographs blah blah, but with all the FX shots and uncreative framing it comes off as looking more like one of the battles from the Lord of the Rings. I keep thinking, how many more times are they going to repeat this visual look? And how interesting it would be to see it reversed, with a brighter saturated palette more akin to Gangs of New York?
But beyond that I felt like Clint was fumbling around with images and scenarios that he didn't understand. I actually think his attempts to shock with the many self-conscious death shots work against him. Decapitated heads, stray limbs, these images are reinforcing a hollywood standard that is putting a tired, and detached attitude into the publics subconscious. It doesn't matter if they're initially shocking (they weren't for me), for anyone who has seen films like this these images come and go as if they were never there. The lack of any staying power turns it into more of a genre film than a film about WAR. It's inevitable for filmmakers these days to mess up on this aspect, but they can at least try to be innovative instead of going through the motions. Bergman and Tarkovsky talked about how tremendous a challenge it would be to take on a war film. I checked out Malick's film from the library recently and I'm eager to see how he handles it-- but in general it's undoubtedly filmmaking's weak spot. Artists are drawn to its spectacle and emotions for obvious reasons but in the end it only reveals inadequacy.
The screenplay was horrible. I imagine they opened up a book of WWII solider rhetoric and threw some of that in when their characters had nothing of their own to say. Filling in the gaps are either predictable developments or manipulative jabs to keep the audience engaged-- how many absurdities towards the Indian were there? Speaking of his character, could they have taken the typical post-traumatic stress disorder and infused it with some originality? Let's have him take to drinking, and then have reoccurring flashbacks--that should do it. Everything, and I mean just about everything, not in the least which is the casting, comes off as average or just passable. It's too bad I'm thinking about things like this rather than what it must have been like to go home early during the war and tour around like a cheerleader. I'm becoming more and more baffled by what the public is deeming as important. I may give Letters a chance, if only to see if it can redeem what I just saw.