War - Hollywood

[BLUEHAWK]

Taken from THE WEEK magazine, October 24, 2003, page 14:

"Why Hollywood won't touch the war on terror"

"Why does Hollywood consider America's war on terror a taboo topic? asked Jonathan V. Last in The Wall Street Journal. It's now more than two years since Sept. 11, and not a single major motion picture has tackled the biggest story line of recent history. 'Contrast this with Hollywood's output during World War II, when it seemed like every fifth movie was about America's heroic struggle to fend off the Germans and the Japanese.' This gives us a clue: any film about the war on terror would necessarily portray Muslim extremists as the bad guys. In Hollywood, that's simply not politically correct. And who would the good guys be? Donald Rumsfeld? George Bush? As one industry insider put it, no self-respecting member of the Hollywood elite 'wants to be seen toadying to the president.' But the biggest reason for the missing war movies may be more basic. 'Historically, the cinema is a lagging, not leading, cultural indicator.' The definitive Vietnam movies, like APOCALYPSE NOW and THE DEER HUNTER, were all made after the fighting had stopped - and a consensus on the war had been reached. Ou rnation remains bitterly divided over the war on terror, and Hollywood is not about to choose sides. So until a consensus develops, we'll just have to settle for yet another MATRIX sequel."

???

:q: :af:

[Jerry D]

Yea!, Where is the Jessica Lynch story :) it is perfectly suited for a TV Movie of the week. They showed a movie last night about the 2 guys in Virginia that shot all those people and are on trial now and that was a year ago it happend. A movie about the 10-13 Saudi Nationals and friends hijacking 4 airplanes and crashing them would make a good movie of the week also! But Like Mike stated that would be showing radical Muslim extremest as bad guys and hollywood isn't ready to admit that yet:d:

[BLUEHAWK]

Jerry -
I can see a whole bunch of interesting dramatic stories that have already come out of the war... the Lynch story for sure one would imagine, and the story about the two reservists who married Iraqi ladies, the pincher assault north through the desert storms to Baghdad, the massive supply deployment itself is fascinating, or behind the scenes at the White House from 9/11 - the invasions, special ops in Afghanistan, the flight of the Taliban, mysteries of Saud... so many things could be discussed, dramatized, documented, mourned, praised... it'll be interesting to see what and when anything does start showing up from Hollywood, or even from foreign film companies.

[BLUEHAWK]

Movie for television titled, I believe, "Saving Jessica Lynch" is to be broadcast on ABC (?) tomorrow, Sunday, evening... still nothing major from Hollywood though.

[Jerry D]

I agree it will be interesting when Hollywood finally decides to make some big budget Action movies about the Iraq war. Like they did for WW2 like "Tora-Tora-Tora" or the "Fighting Leathernecks"

[Tamaroa]

we see anything come from the Hollywood elite. Everything is so polarized now that if anyone did make a movie about it, it would have to lie and make us look like idiots over there. The Hollywood elite want nothing to do with Bush so they can't make a movie that would portray Bush or the military in a positive light.

Bill

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
This causes pain... pain because in war a people ought join hands in common purpose, and our president IS a good, decent and courageous leader, worthy of all that is due.

Though not yet as bad as it got in the 60-70s, it could go there, when it comes to our brothers and sisters in arms if the trend continues.

As we've elsewhere discussed lengthily, historical parallels are specious at best... and yet, the signs are rising. This time, we on the "other" side, WILL not let our own be hurt.

Truth will out.

[revwardoc]

<LABEL id=HbSession SessionId="273322329">Didja hear about that movie based on the '67 Arab-Iraeli War? It's called "Torah, Torah, Torah"! Get it?! Ya see instead of "Tora" it's "Torah" because its a Jewish thing and...ah, forget it!</LABEL>

[SuperScout]

As others have already stated, the sad state of political correctness will preclude any movie portraying the current administration or the military in a favorable light. Of the two movies of the Vietnam genre mentioned, neither portrayed the military very accurately or positively, surprise, surprise. In the exent case, political correctness has stopped any mention of the deeds of Muslim - excuse me while I make my point - MUSLIM extremists and terrorists, just as it has stopped intelligent passenger screening techniques from stopping and grilling Muslim-appearing passengers. Very few Scandanavian grandmothers have hijacked our planes, bombed our embassies, or caused much other harm, yet these people are screened as if they had 50 lbs. of C-4 strapped to their butt. We need to pull our collective heads out of rectal defolade and start dealing with the realities of who really means us harm.

[BLUEHAWK]

Scout - Dan - Bill - Jerry

Interesting question Scout raises, so to you and anyone then:

WHICH films DO accurately portray, say, Vietnam, WW II, Korea, War of Rebellion (uncivil war) etc.????

That would make a VERY interesting list from warriors...

[Jerry D]

Dan that was a good one :ae:

Mike I liked "Gods and Generals" for the WBTS era :a:

[BLUEHAWK]

Jerry -
I also found some treasure seeing "GOOD MORNING VIETNAM"... seemed believeable.

[Desdichado]

I don't think ANY "war movie" about ANY war could be considered accurate. Oh, they can get all the little technical details right if they try, but ultimately all you're going to get is a snapshot at best. Unfortunately, anyone who wasn't actually there is going to seize on that snapshot as if it were some kind of all-encompassing mural. People tend to treat movies as history, even when they're clearly not.

Good Morning Vietnam works as a film because it's not a movie about Vietnam, it's a movie set IN Vietnam. It's a freaking huge difference that film makers just don't seem to get.

I think films like We Were Soldiers are nothing more than pornographic violence. It's one thing when a book tells a story about something that happened. A book is a personal thing. It informs. When it gets turned into hundreds of people sitting in air-conditioned padded seats, munching popcorn and watching people die for their entertainment on a Friday night, it just transcends sick. Life has no soundtrack.

And I don't know what Oliver Stone(d) was thinkin' with his movies, but I'd like to punch him in the nose.

[revwardoc]

<LABEL id=HbSession SessionId="3429134469">Since you asked about an accurate film about the Rev War, I'd have to say, overall, Drums Along the Mohawk, which was pretty good for 1939. One of the funny things about that movie was they rarely used the term "British", opting instead for redcoat or Tory. The word is that Hollywood didn't want to chance insulting Great Britain or having the power of the movie-media influence American attitudes about England even at that late pre-WWII date. It was a PC world even back then. While the story is based on actual events, thereare a fewinaccuracies but you'd have to be a Rev War nut, like, me to notice.</LABEL>

<LABEL SessionId="3429134469">Revolution, with Al Pacino, was excellent for clothing, city scenes, and the way veterans were treated immediately following the warbut didn't take advantage of a potentially good story line. And Pacino's accent was way off.</LABEL>

<LABEL SessionId="3429134469">The Patriot was a good Hollywood-style "Mel"-odrama (Braveheart with pants) but was historical garbage. Several friends were among the "nameless rabble" in the cast and they all told horror stories about the director (a German national) who just plain would not listen to the re-enactors. He told them to leave if they didn't like what was going on. Nice guy, very co-operative.http://www.patriotfiles.com/forum/iipcache/259.png</LABEL>

[BLUEHAWK]

Dan -
The New Yorker just came out late October with an entire issue devoted to nothing but films and how they get made, along the lines of the director you mention who got in the way of re-enactors suggesting authenticity... must be all but impossible to visualize war, any way it gets shaken. It's an interesting topic though, since vets who HAVE "seen the Elephant" can tell fact from fiction real quick.

[BLUEHAWK]

Sir John Keegan, a well-respected British military historian and writer of numerous books on the topic said, when asked which war film(s) he liked, replied:

"I do not like war films".

[BLUEHAWK]

The October 20th, 2003 issue of THE NEW YORKER magazine was devoted entirely to anything and everything having to do with films and film making...
damn interesting reading all in all.

A dear pal o' mine, Oscar winner for his screen writing on "THE CANDIDATE",
did not think too highly of the issue... said it lacked life. I trust him, totally.

[Arrow]

Originally posted by Desdichado I don't think ANY "war movie" about ANY war could be considered accurate. Oh, they can get all the little technical details right if they try, but ultimately all you're going to get is a snapshot at best. Unfortunately, anyone who wasn't actually there is going to seize on that snapshot as if it were some kind of all-encompassing mural. People tend to treat movies as history, even when they're clearly not.

Good Morning Vietnam works as a film because it's not a movie about Vietnam, it's a movie set IN Vietnam. It's a freaking huge difference that film makers just don't seem to get.

I think films like We Were Soldiers are nothing more than pornographic violence. It's one thing when a book tells a story about something that happened. A book is a personal thing. It informs. When it gets turned into hundreds of people sitting in air-conditioned padded seats, munching popcorn and watching people die for their entertainment on a Friday night, it just transcends sick. Life has no soundtrack.

And I don't know what Oliver Stone(d) was thinkin' with his movies, but I'd like to punch him in the nose.

I was trying to find words to compare the movie Cold Mountainwith the book of the same title by Charles Frazier and could not. Your whole post expresses my thoughts perfectly.

I went to see the movie Cold Mountainand the description of the story contained in the book that Griz had told me about was not there. I left the movie and got to the book store before it closed at 11 pm.They had the book andit took me on a journey that I will never forget.

The opposite happened with We Were Soldiers I read the book and saw the movie with my children in their home. It was a serious time and not a form of entertainment for any of us. Again the movie could never tell the story contained in the book. I do think there was one good thing that came out of that movie and that is a more respectful view of the Vietnam Veteran and what he lived through. Other than that I would agree completely with your statement that Hollywood War Stories are largely poronographic violence.

Arrow&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;

[BLUEHAWK]

I have wondered though, could it be possible that film versions of warfare seem to be "pornographic" violence only, or primarily, because they, like pornography, are portraying an act where a human is seeing something that can only be experienced personally? That is, witnessing a version of an intensely private experience so huge in its effects upon us that, perhaps, NO version or a rare few anyway, are able to approach the truth?

I have found myself deeply touched by certain war films... e.g. I thought GOOD MORNING VIETNAM (as I may have said elsewhere) seemed plausible, and was poignant somehow, maybe close to real. There have been many others throughout my 57 years too, all the names of which I do not bring to mind this minute (GUNS OF NAVARONNE, BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY or THE DIRTY DOZEN would be examples), but which seemed to teach something about war, or warfare... who knows if it was the "correct" lesson, but it was communicated nevertheless.

I have not gone to COLD MOUNTAIN yet, and may not. However, when the book first came out years ago a dear friend made sure I got an early copy... knowing of my interest in that particular war, and I too found it a moving story, plausible and instructive.

Maybe for those among us who have actually seen the elephant there is not and cannot be ANY portrayal of war which is able to meet its meaning...

[revwardoc]

I've found that the best way to find out what war was/is really like is not to read novels or watch movies or TV or even history texts. It's to read forums like this one, written by the men and women who experienced it first hand and by reading the diaries and letters of combat vets. These are the people who know. A history text will tell you of the slaughter of a battle in general terms but the diary of a combatant will tell you of the face-to-face, hand-to-hand struggle, of the screams of the wounded, having your face splattered by the blood of a guy who was your best friend, of a horse struggling to stand despite having its leg torn away by a cannonball, of pissing your pants watching the human wave rushing at you while you stand behind a shield wall waiting for the first shock of contact. That is the reality and obscenity of war.

Yeah, sure. You can see a Hollywood star "die" in battle, but a few months later he's in a romantic comedy falling for the girl next door. So if you're like me, a guy who served but never saw combat, or just someone who wants to know about what can happen in battle, find those letters, diaries, journals, or talk to a vet.

[BLUEHAWK]

the elephant

seeing the elephant

[Desdichado]

I'd have to say, the fightin' and killin' in Cold Mountain seemed pretty accurate - maybe too accurate. I thought I was taking the wife to a flowery chick flick (secretly, I was looking forward to two hours of fantasizing about Rene and Nicole living in cabin :q: :ae: - obviously I had no clue what the movie was about).

I was a little taken aback by the sheer quantity of the violence - and such violence!

I think the crater scenes were pretty accurate from what I've read about the battle, though obviously suffering the usual temporal distortion movies have when they try to portray long events. Except maybe the sheer density of men inside; and the throwing of perfectly good rifle-muskets, bayonet attached, like spears. Maybe that happened, but it seems a waste of a good gun.

And even if it really isn't all that visually accurate, it confirmed an impression I've long held; the Civil War was not blue and gray in neat lines and chivalrous speech to be-dahliaed belles behind the rhododendrons. It was mud and blood and no fun at all.

When all is said and done, though, I'd have liked the film a whole lot more without any of that. Just didn't do a thing for me. I really don't need to see pumping neck wounds. I'm sure someone will get their special effects Oscar nomination for it, but it seemed gratuitous to me.

[MORTARDUDE]

My wife and I are going to see the movie version of "Cold Mountain" this weekend. We are also going to try to see "21 Grams" as well. It is only showing in one theatre here in Memphis, even though it was filmed here. When I retire, I am going to try to get as much "extra" work in the movies locally as I can. My oldest son and I were extras in the movie "The Firm" filmed in Memphis. My scenes didn't make it to the screen,and my son had all of two seconds on film.. LOL. I enjoyed it. Good food, good pay, hanging out with movie folks, and sort of like the military, hurry up and wait...

As for war movies and reality...no matter how closely they mimic war, it is never like the real-deal. I have found that for the most part, foreign films are better in this regard. There have been several good ones about the war in Bosnia / Sarajevo. There are some good German and Russian films about WW 2. Africa has produced some great films about the seemingly unending wars that have plagued that continent since the end of WW2...

It always gets me the way explosions are portrayed in war movies...In "The Terminator", Arnold has that terrible M-79 that fires some kind of fantastic explosive round...LOL

Hollywood seems to love to make every explosion and car blow-up to have lots of yellow and red fire-balls. Quite unrealistic, but great for visuals...

Larry

[BLUEHAWK]

I've noticed (he says, pokin' his head above the breastment once again :-) that warrior vets tend to pick out often the same/similar, but often VERY different film scenes which are seen as being authentic... must be it has been seen as shown, which to me makes it ring true.

[Desdichado]

It's all in the experience. My experience is zipping by 500 feet up at 60 to a 100 knots, drop off and/or pick up, few discernible sounds other than jet turbine and radio crackle. Then back to electric lights, cold soda, hot shower, and my personal library. Tough life, eh? Hell, I didn't even have running water at HOME then. I was having the time of my life.

Anyway, I wouldn't know what an up-close infantryman's battle looked like if I were stuck in the middle of it. Whatever a "warrior vet" is - I ain't it. ;)

[BLUEHAWK]

They who were tell me that even being with the gear in the rear amounts to the same thing... but, something tells me that ain't so... hence, we have Psycho-Vets whose unique experiences do, it seems, qualify as warrior level, eh?

[Tamaroa]

I really can't judge a lot of ground combat movies as to their accuracy. I can however apply standards to Naval movies and to a large extent Civil War movies.

Master and Commander I thought was extremely realistic. I was actually stunned when Russel Crowe used the command "On the up roll, FIRE" Somebody went to that level of detail to get it right. In the american Navy at the time, the command was "Mind the weather roll, FIRE". This was to account for the rolling of the ship and the cannon were to be fired at an upward angle.

Staying on the maritime theme, I was also impressed with the Movie Titanic. That dumb stuff with Leonardo and Kate notwithstanding. I noticed that they useed the right distess signal, CQD Come quick disaster instead of the SOS, which was implemented around the same time. Also unless you were a real nut, you would not have noticed that when they were trying to "port around" the iceberg, they turned the wheel to the right. Nowadays, when you want the ship to turn right, you spin the wheel right as in a car. the Titanic was one of the last ships built where it was the opposite. You turned right to go left.

By the same token, finding an accurate Civil War movie in its entirety is very difficult. Every Civil War movie I have ever seen has flashs of brillance but in the end, they always screw something up big time. One movie that comes to mind is Glory. Terrific in the sense that it sets the mood and really gets you into it. The last half hour of the movie is especially good with the charge into the breastworks of Battery Wagner.

Trouble is the movie while accurate as regards uniform detail had a whole bunch of facts twisted. I had the good fortune to talk to one of Robert Gould Shaw's great great grandneices. She is a pastor here in Rockland County. She told me things that made my head spin relative to the information as told in the movie. For example Shaw was married when all of this started. We see no evidence of that. Shaw refused command of the 54th at first. His domineering mother forced him into taking the position. Again we see nothing of that. Remember the scene when the 54th left? All the cheering and huzzahs, etc. In reality most of the population turned their back to the men as they marched out. And the number one thing that really irritated me was at the end of the movie they showed the troops being buried in the trenchs dug by Confederates. There were approximately 600 Union soldiers buried in a mass grave. The movie shows all Blacks. I read the battle reports of LTC Halliwell, Shaw's XO, he says that 9 were killed 100 missing and 150 wounded. The Confederate commander of the Fort, Taliferro stated he buried 600 soldiers the next day. So was there justice in that? I think not. The movie was good. It may have piqued the interest if several people to dig deeper into the war but if they do and find out as I did how distorted the hollywood version is........... Well, I dunno, I now go to be entertained not with any hope of accuracy.


Bill :cd:

[BLUEHAWK]

Bill -
Yes, I believe you have hit it, by saying the best idea is to attend the films to be entertained, nor necessarily to be educated.... but I find it very interesting HOW DEEPLY many of us really would like to be educated at the same time...