War films have always repulsed me and fascinated me. I've never fully understood why people like them. Isn't the purpose of the war film to highlight the brutal consequences, and ultimate stupidity of war? Whenever I discuss war films and someone says, "Oh, I LOVE that movie," I can't help but think that person missed the point. When done well, a war film can be the most powerful kind; not so much a form of entertainment but a bringer of awareness to universal human consciousness. Only in the throes of a false war, a fake war before our eyes, can empathy form and we have the reactions to war that we ought. A great example of this the 1942 film Mrs. Miniver directed by William Wyler. This film was made to bring American sympathy to British citizens suffering from the blitzkrieg. Not a straight-up war film, but a powerful piece of propaganda designed to bring support to war by showing its effects on the "average" person. And this film still is affecting, despite the passage of time. So here are a few especially powerful war moments put to film:
The end of All Quiet on the Western Front (1930) shows a rare glimpse into the German trenches of World War One. This is a powerful indictment of indoctrination from youth into the "glories" of war. The film's violence in itself is pretty tame by today's standards, but the final shot of a character, disenchanted and emotionally brutalized, reaching for a butterfly, is heart-breaking.
Cheesy entry, but the long crane shot of the miles of injured Confederate soldiers is still as powerful today as it was when Gone with the Wind debuted in 1939.
Apocalypse Now (1979), the ultimate war-is-hell film, brims with intensity when Willard and his team stop a boat full of Vietnamese merchants, killing them for resisting, only to discover they were hiding a puppy. Insanity ensues, because when one doesn't know up from down, and who to trust, how can one stay sane?
The first half-hour of Saving Private Ryan (1998), Spielberg recognizes the power of the indelible image. He barrages the senses to give the audience a front seat into D-Day, but with the deafening pauses after explosions shows searing images of soldiers blindly retrieving their limbs, entire groups on fire, others dragging what is left of their fellow soldiers, drowning, and the general misery of war. But its the quiet on the beach after with dead bodies, dead fish and red waves that sends the message home. And call me crazy, the most heart-wrenching part is watching the government car pull up in the driveway to tell a woman three of her sons are dead. The audience is left to marvel how this maneuver even worked at all.
Enemy at the Gates (2001), has an incredible battle sequence, where terrified Soviet soldiers are literally shoved into battle, and forced to choose between the bullets of the German army when they directly charged the German lines, or the bullets of the Soviets, since the Soviets would fire on their own troops for running away.
Lastly, Black Hawk Down (2001) is relentless, just like we imagine battles to be. The intensity of this film is enough to give someone a heart attack, and I don't mean that in a hyperbolic way. The constant bombs, bullets, blood and gore throughout that very long night are enough to give anyone nightmares.
War is hell. It's sad we need films to remind us of that.
Note: There are a number of war films BackseatDirector has not seen, because she is a wuss. She had to turn off The Deer Hunter, and hasn't been brave enough to watch Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, and simply has never seen Patton, Gettysburg, Letters from Iwo Jima, or Flags of our Fathers, or your insert film here. So cut me a break :).
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Saturday, May 1, 2010
Reconsidering "The Dark Knight"
This week has been a blast of movieland serendipity. Last weekend, motivated by a family member's Netflix choice, I rewatched The Dark Knight, and mentioned Christopher Nolan as one of the best directors working today. Today, I found out the release date for the next Batman film, July 20, 2012. This is the same weekend The Dark Knight was released in 2008 to incredible critical, audience and financial acclaim. This was one of the primary reasons for the delay of Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince from November 2008 to July 2009; the studio (ridiculously) felt that it was the weekend choice that made The Dark Knight so successful.
But I digress. When The Dark Knight was released, it became one of the most successful movies ever released. The anticipation was heightened with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the film's Joker (for the three people who live in a cave somewhere). It shot to the top of IMDb's top 250 list, and two years later has settled at number 10. It's sequel is one of the most anticipated films right now, including with yours truly. I adore The Dark Knight, and rank it among my favorite action films.
But rewatching it, my opinion has slightly changed. Mind you, I still adore it, but I've noticed some flaws in the storytelling I hadn't noticed before. The first two hours are some of the best committed to film. Ledger is a revelation, and was absolutely terrifying in his unpredictability. The unpredictability factor is gone after repeat viewings, but he's still pretty darn scary (come on, who isn't scared of someone who randomly shoots at cars driving down the street?). The script is smart, the action exciting, and the whole film is an intense, suspenseful slow burn towards an exciting climax involving ethics and choices. The film pulls no punches, does not flinch, and it goes places the typical super-hero movie doesn't go. Hence, my adoration.
But when Gordon receives that phone call, the film starts to fall apart. When Nolan let Harvey Two-Face out of the box, and he kidnaps Gordon's family, the film becomes overblown. It tries to do too much at the end, cram in another subplot. And it does the film no favors. I have to admit, usually after the Joker's upside down "madness" speech, I turn the movie off, because for me that feels like the film's natural conclusion. Adding on another twenty minutes of Harvey Two-Face stopped a great film dead. Now, in a narrative sense, Nolan had to do something to get Batman exiled; the Harvey thing works, but it doesn't work well. So in a moment of Monday morning quarterbacking, wouldn't the film itself be better served for Batman to be blamed for Harvey's disappearance, and have had Two-Face be an underground villain for this upcoming third film? Same end result, and it would be an interesting plot to have Harvey commit crimes, but them constantly being blamed on Batman, and have Gordon's family's peril be a part of this film? Alas, this is just my very overblown sense of ego talking, but to me, this adjustment would have sent The Dark Knight into the sublime, and set up for an interesting sequel. It's still a great film, but not as great as it could have been.
Now, lets pop some popcorn, and listen to the harebrained rumors and theories for titles, villains and wait for what I hope will be an even better film in 2012.
But I digress. When The Dark Knight was released, it became one of the most successful movies ever released. The anticipation was heightened with the tragic death of Heath Ledger, the film's Joker (for the three people who live in a cave somewhere). It shot to the top of IMDb's top 250 list, and two years later has settled at number 10. It's sequel is one of the most anticipated films right now, including with yours truly. I adore The Dark Knight, and rank it among my favorite action films.
But rewatching it, my opinion has slightly changed. Mind you, I still adore it, but I've noticed some flaws in the storytelling I hadn't noticed before. The first two hours are some of the best committed to film. Ledger is a revelation, and was absolutely terrifying in his unpredictability. The unpredictability factor is gone after repeat viewings, but he's still pretty darn scary (come on, who isn't scared of someone who randomly shoots at cars driving down the street?). The script is smart, the action exciting, and the whole film is an intense, suspenseful slow burn towards an exciting climax involving ethics and choices. The film pulls no punches, does not flinch, and it goes places the typical super-hero movie doesn't go. Hence, my adoration.
But when Gordon receives that phone call, the film starts to fall apart. When Nolan let Harvey Two-Face out of the box, and he kidnaps Gordon's family, the film becomes overblown. It tries to do too much at the end, cram in another subplot. And it does the film no favors. I have to admit, usually after the Joker's upside down "madness" speech, I turn the movie off, because for me that feels like the film's natural conclusion. Adding on another twenty minutes of Harvey Two-Face stopped a great film dead. Now, in a narrative sense, Nolan had to do something to get Batman exiled; the Harvey thing works, but it doesn't work well. So in a moment of Monday morning quarterbacking, wouldn't the film itself be better served for Batman to be blamed for Harvey's disappearance, and have had Two-Face be an underground villain for this upcoming third film? Same end result, and it would be an interesting plot to have Harvey commit crimes, but them constantly being blamed on Batman, and have Gordon's family's peril be a part of this film? Alas, this is just my very overblown sense of ego talking, but to me, this adjustment would have sent The Dark Knight into the sublime, and set up for an interesting sequel. It's still a great film, but not as great as it could have been.
Now, lets pop some popcorn, and listen to the harebrained rumors and theories for titles, villains and wait for what I hope will be an even better film in 2012.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)