I suppose that’s what’s called ‘artistic licence’. But it is an effective scene.
2 Likes
It’s not nonsense at all… it’s cool and that’s what matters… Coppola wasn’t going for realism, so I really don’t see your point.
Also, anyone who thinks glorifying violence or war in art is bad should probably just stick to watching stupid netflix shows. The people who don’t enjoy glorified violence in cinema simply have no appreciation for cinema as an art form, people who will never “get it”.
It’s an impressive scene!
The objection to glorification of war in film stems from an appreciation of cinema as art.
War is tragic and horrific, so a film which makes it entertaining or fun has not captured its essence.
A similar objection applies to sentimentality in art, where manipulation of viewers’ emotions trumps any convincing evocation of human psychology.
I wouldn’t be a lifelong SW fan if I expected or demanded realism in all films which depict war or violence. Most of the films I enjoy don’t score very high on psychological realism either. It’s very much about mode and intent.
However, I object when a film ostensibly about war, set in a specific, and at the time of making, recent war, prosecuted by the country from which the film was produced, glorifies that war.
If this resulted, not from the director’s failure, but his intent (as he suggested) it becomes a moral objection.
As such it’s the same sort of unease most of us now have to the glorification of genocide in American Westerns and the KKK in Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation.
5 Likes
The objection to glorification of war in film stems from an appreciation of cinema as art.
No, it stems from personal beliefs and values… realism has no impact or power in cinema.
War is tragic and horrific, so a film which makes it entertaining or fun has not captured its essence.
I do agree, but that doesn’t make the glorification of war inherently bad. Pursuit of realism has NEVER worked well in cinema. What you want is a documentary… so just watch a documentary.
However, I object when a film ostensibly about war, set in a specific, and at the time of making, recent war, prosecuted by the country from which the film was produced, glorifies that war.
So I’m right, it stems from personal political viewpoint, unrelated to the films quality and whether it has any artistic merit or not, so you’re not willing to appreciate a film unless it agrees with your personal viewpoints.
I also agree btw, the film is morally questionable, but that doesn’t make it any worse. So many great films are made by or feature horrible people or ideals that i couldn’t dislike or disagree more with (bullet for the general and klaus kinski come to mind instantly).
I get your argument as I also enjoy a film more when it’s story is founded on values and beliefs I align with. However, if you watch films for political affirmation, then you like politics, not film.
As a long time Indiana Jones fan, the first three films being an important staple of my childhood and the birth of my love of films in general, this fan theory that floats around really gets under my skin.
I’ve never believed for one second that Indy took advantage of an underage Marion and If viewers listen carefully to the near end of Indy and Marion’s reunion/confrontation, he says “I did what I had to do, you don’t have to be happy about it,” which over the years has come to mean to me that Indy was onto something big in research he was doing and needed some information or archeological piece at Abner Ravenwood likely had in his possession, but for whatever reason kept it hidden. I believe Indy led Marion to believe he shared her romantic interest and used that to gain access to whatever Abner had that he needed, and upon being discovered in the ruse, lost the respect, admiration, and friendship of Abner, and Marion’s smitten teenager having her romantic image of Indy shattered. Betrayal from someone you deeply care about can run very deep, and it’s very clear Marion still held that pain, even while never having fallen out of love with him.
You can also tell from Indy’s voice when discussing Abner to the Washington men early on in the film that he always had a deep regret of what he did to both Marion and Abner, Abner a little more so I think because they shared a father/son bond, something Indy didn’t get much of from his real father growing up, And upon learning Abner had passed away some time before the events of the film really stung Indy.
5 Likes
Well said … plus it makes absolutely no sense to design the screenplay of family action adventure film with this rather seedy aspect … but people will argue about the most ludicrous concepts these days, even within a fictional storyline … It’s all a bit juvenile and tedious - As William Shatner once said to his more overwrought Star Trek fans , ‘Get a life!’
5 Likes
It’s not a fan theory. You’re way too emotionally invested in the franchise, to the point where you think you know better than George Lucas and Steven Spielberg and you’re ignoring irrefutable evidence to the contrary of your opinion because you find it convenient. Objective evidence should be valued more than any individuals opinion and you’re ignoring it. Aldo I’m used to by now though, he was always goofy levels of emotional…
To your first point, I don’t think artistic judgement is possible without personal beliefs and values, least of all in narrative arts like literature, theatre and film.
‘Realism’ has several definitions in the arts, but I’m using it in the very general sense of, ‘corresponding to something in the world’. In that sense, it’s hugely impactful in our interpretation of cinema. Surrealism exists in contrast to it. When we judge acting, dialogue, motivation, plot devices, set design, special effects, etc. as unconvincing, we do so to some degree by reference to our model of what’s real.
Again, I don’t think you can entirely separate moral from artistic judgements because the two are inextricably entangled in the narrative arts. Even if you could, I don’t know why you would want to. We can admire Triumph of The Will for its artistic ambition and innovative achievement, without considering it a fine piece of cinema or a good film.
A facist film, a racist book, a hate speech, whatever… doesn’t become
praiseworthy because it’s proficiently and ingeniously executed. Arguably, a film made with great artistic skill that has a culturally negative impact is worse than a similarly objectionable but badly made one.
So I was talking of the moral weight of a film and its (sometimes unintended) good or bad cultural impact. Two other distinct classes of issues you raised are:
- immoral acts in the making of films (abuse of animals, cast and crew, etc.);
- the moral character of actors and directors established by things they did outside the film.
Clearly these only affect our judgement of a film if we get to hear about them. I take a strong view on the first and a nuanced, unresolved line on the second.
Some films that fall into the first category I wouldn’t name for fear of giving them any publicity. I would boycott Rust because I think Halyna Hutchins’ shooting was a failure of care on the part of those in charge of production.
Sorry for taking this way off topic.
I disagree. It seems that you demand ideological/poltical agreement/affirmation from art prior to your enjoyment of it, which I can understand, but not everyone is like that.
Yes it does… one of my favorite albums of all time - Arghoslent’s Incorrigible Bigotry is a vessel for hate and (actual) white supremacy, yet it’s a masterpiece that I thoroughly enjoy. You can separate your personal political and social views from your enjoyment of a work of art. Similarly, Klaus Kinski is a literal psychopath and the treatment of horses in westerns was notoriously negligent, yet it doesn’t make me enjoy these films any less because I can separate my enjoyment of the work of art from my political/ideological alignment with it, it’s actors and the way it was produced. Spaghetti western directors also hated what american westerns stood for, but they still loved them as films, as works of art.
The only time a moral objection arises is when it comes to financially supporting people who I consider to be bad, because that actually supports the ideology/beliefs/movement etc. It’s something that has an actual negative impact in the real world. Your enjoyment and appreciation of the work of art does not.
Create a new thread if you wish to continue your conversation … back to the topic in question now.
‘Classic films I never need to see again’
One that I’d temporarily forgotten about, but it needs to go …
Went to watch this again within the last year, and found it kind of ridiculous … after literally decades of thinking it was something really special.
Warren Beatty is a horrible actor, so overly concerned with coming off as cool and handsome that all his ‘characterisations’ suffer, or rather WE, the audience do … He’s identical in everything he appears in … and it’s taken me a while to realize this.
Faye Dunaway is another who has been getting away with artistic murder for years … the rest of the cast play their parts like a group doing ‘Southern Folk’ on a SNL sketch … all dumb as hell and with no depth or redeeming characteristics .
That’s how I found my last aborted attempt at watching this wildly overrated ‘classic’.
3 Likes
Watched this again, for the ‘zillionth’ time, last night … and I still have some love for it.
It’s strange looking at it now, just how outrageous(in a good way) John Cassavetes is as ‘Victor Franco’, a really jittery thug, who rebels against Lee Marvin’s authority character, Major Reisman, at every opportunity … their clashing is what really keeps the movie interesting for the first 2/3 … the operation to destroy the chateau full of German officers is well done but secondary in importance to the build up.
So, I haven’t written this one off … and if I’m still around, I’d go back to it in 5 years when we have an 8K version
2 Likes
The Dirty Dozen is God-level comfort viewing for me. If I can’t decide what to watch or don’t know quite what I’m in the mood for, odds are I’ll land on The Dirty Dozen. Probably watched it 7 or 8 times this year alone. Struggling to think of a movie I’m more likely to fall back to. Enter the Dragon, maybe. I don’t so much watch these movies any more as drop in on them, like an elderly relative. In fact if my daughter wasn’t getting up in about 40 minutes’ time I’d be tempted to stick a comfort movie on right now.
But as to the thread topic: I’ll probably never give Don’t Look Now another go. Might not ever bother with Paths of Glory, Lawrence of Arabia or Escape to Victory either. Well, I might watch PoG and LoA again, but I’d lose no sleep if I never did.
Forrest Gump can f#ck all the way off, though. Load of auld bumshit.
2 Likes
That and other nu-classics which regularly feature in all the best-films-of-all-time lists: Shawshank Redemption, Schindler’s List, Seven, City of God, Life Is Beautiful, Green Mile, The Pianist, American History X etc., etc.
I have never taken to any of Spielberg’s films either, I have found them universally underwhelming and stylistically trite.
Not that fond of The Godfather either. I absolutely f*cking hated Cabaret the last time I saw it, what a load of badly-written horseshit. I have also kind of fallen out of love with Star Wars.
2 Likes
I never did love it … quite enjoyed it when it first came out, but never saw what the big deal was … plus, I hated the design of Darth Vader, and the ‘Comic relief’ robots, who of course in Shakespearean style aren’t in the least bit amusing.
47 years later it’s a much harder watch for me … Dreadful acting for the most part and whiney American adolescent dialogue from the ‘hero’ … plus the Princess who can’t decide if she is American or English etc etc.
Granted it was a landmark for visuals in it’s day, but then so was ‘King Kong’ (1933) and most would agree that looks clunky as F**K … though less embarrassing than the 1976 version.
I’d agree with most of your other choices too … though I haven’t seen and don’t feel the need to watch ‘Life is Beautiful’, ever.
2 Likes
The thing is I tend to enjoy movies regardless of their inherent technical merit so to speak; you could say I focus on the feels and vibes and stuff without paying too much heed to their defects and technical minutiae, so I can easily pass over certain blemishes as long a flick makes me feel a certain way. At the end of the day, it is like a piece of audiovisual candy, it doesn’t have to be particularly meaningful to serve its purpose and can even prove disagreeable in some respects.
So while the Star Wars franchise is definitely a bit of that, a throwback to a different zeitgeist and cultural landscape, its nostalgic value has largely evaporated for me, I don’t even know why, it’s no longer there for me, it’s just so stodgy and stale for me, feels so clunky, I can’t watch them really. And I am a man who loves to revisit Moonraker for crying out loud. These old installments might still be light years ahead of the new batch, which is barely watchable, but still, meh.
1 Like
A masterpiece ! … actually watched it on BD about 2 weeks ago - it’s hilarious and still very watchable, as silly as it is.
1 Like
I can’t watch Moonraker anymore because Dolly lost her braces, so the best scene is lost. Yeah, this is Mandela effect so trigger warning!
3 Likes
Moonraker is the most boring Bond film for me, and it is astonishing how much better the ostensibly similar The Spy Who Loved Me is in nearly every respect.
Cabaret has great musical scenes, otherwise not that interesting, but watchable.
1 Like