| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Culture Wars |
| Hollywood's Phony (Anti)War - The Sequel |
| 2007-11-28 |
| Posted by:anonymous5089 |
| #9 I think people should be very careful in relating an actor to the movies view of things. Gene Hackman may have been very anti-war but loved the character, needed the paycheck, wanted to work with the director or felt that a trip to Europe would be nice or in fact since the movie was actually a defeat (especially for the Poles) that the movie was anti-war. I don't know anything about Gene's politics in particular, I'm just saying. If a guy plays Jesus that doesn't mean he's Jewish or even a good person or even understand the director's vision. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-28 18:48 |
| #8 I'm reading "House to House" by SSG David Bellavia re: Fallujah. If they wanted a script Americans would go see, here it is! Btw - ordered it via Fred's Amazon link - he gets to wet his beak as well. Win-Win-Win! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2007-11-28 18:35 |
| #7 I would have to say that the perception of war is critical to waging war. Mike, Have to agree 'Last Stand of the Tin Can Soldiers' is a great book and would be a great addition to 'The Great Raid'/'Ghost Soldiers'. Would also like to add, with the precedence of '300' and 'Lord of the Rings', opening scene to 'Gladiator': Herold Lamb's 'Hannibal' and Caesar's 'The Gallic Campaign'; each a 3 part film. Film a la Elizibeth - Charlemagne. How about 'To the Last Man', 'Gone for Soldiers', or 'The Last Full Measure'. It seems to this youngn' that the longer someone is in the hollywood machine the more likely they are to change from pro-war to con. Gene Hackman and Robert Redford from 'Bridge too Far' to today. Remember when clowny was 'The Peacemaker' and fought vampires in a mexican strip club? and so forth. As this continues video games will become more and more interactive movies and hollywood will make more movies for out of USA markets IMHO. |
| Posted by: swksvolFF 2007-11-28 16:27 |
| #6 Star Wars and Indiana Jones were also good stories (that is, interesting and entertaining) supported by good storytelling (competent script, acting, SFX). Good stories well told will always win out, no matter the medium. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-11-28 11:00 |
| #5 I was thinking the other day about Hollywood blockbusters. They say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones changed things. Yeah, they made money. Where you around back then? Movies were dying then too basically for similar reasons today, all dark, foreboding aghast filled with anti-heroes. If people wanted that, they'd stay at work with the boss. Why pay someone else for that 'entertainment'. So people flocked to Star Wars and Indiana Jones to see something other than the dark side of the force. If you want to send a message, use a documentary. Of course, such documentary has to meet the PC of the industry as Indoctrination U didn't. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-28 10:49 |
| #4 I was thinking the other day about Hollywood blockbusters. They say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones changed things. They were episodic (patterend after the serial films of an earlier age) and full of action and made a fortune. Following their example the character movie of the 70s was replaced with dumb action movies. Now I wonder if it was really Star Wars and Indiana that did the damage. Around the same time we had cable television and VHS show up big time. We had the ability of a viewer to pause, or catch a flick later. Content had to grab people faster than ever before or they'd flip to another channel or fast forward through the duller parts. Yeah there is still room for the occasional Elizabeth but I think you get my point here. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2007-11-28 10:06 |
| #3 Oh, hell, you want a grand, ripsnorting special-effects action movie that'll score big at the box office? History's better than anything you can make up on your own. Here's your script. Or try this. Or this. Or even this. |
| Posted by: Mike 2007-11-28 09:20 |
| #2 Art without genuine conviction is boring and worthless. What else does the artist (filmmaker) have to give to the audience but his or her passion? Its no surprise the audience is disinterested without it. Off topic but the word is uninterested. Roger Simon is a professional writer and should know better. /pedantic complaint |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2007-11-28 09:10 |
| #1 Serious filmmakers â or filmmakers who think they are serious â are often looking around for their âOscar pictureâ at that juncture. That's the problem. It's the market stupid. It's a business. It's not about one self. If they were dealing with their own money or the money of a patron, then go an enjoy yourself. If you're using other people's money in a commercial enterprise, you owe them a return. Further, you don't get to use other people's money in the form of tax write offs or state government loans. May you all sink into the abyss of Motown who ignored the consumer as paramount. It wouldn't take a Hollyweird hack to rewrite and update Rio Grande or the Charge of the Light Brigade into contemporary settings. If executed as well as Blackhawk Down, you'd have yourselves money makers. Hollyweird is a population of petulant trophy wifes, who've sold their souls for wealth and notoriety. They love the attention and glamour, but resent the big daddy [the paying public] that makes it all so possible. So, they engage in spite and self destructive behaviors to demonstrate that they are their own person. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2007-11-28 08:34 |