I Am Private Ryan Down!
5/11/05
One day, making the rounds in the cubicle world, I was waxing poetic, ranting and raving actually, to anyone who would listen, about how good a movie I thought Saving Private Ryan (1998) was. I went into my, “When it was first released…” story and how, at the Ziegfield Theatre, with a crisp 70 mm print and incredible digital surround sound that it was, by far, the most engrossing film experience I ever had. I actually paid to see it twice.
Upon hearing my hyperbole, an esteemed colleague of mine was intrigued and asked me to lend him the DVD. Always eager to spread “the word,” the very next day I brought in my copy, all excited with anticipation on hearing the musings of someone who was seeing this landmark film for the first time.
When I presented the well worn disc to the target of my prostelezation, he had a surprise for me. He pulled out a copy of Black Hawk Down (2001) and told me it was I who was in for a treat because “Hawk” was “great” “gritty” “realistic” etc. I was happy because, one, I have a fondness for the war genre and, two, I heard good things about “Black Hawk” and always wanted to see it but never got around to it. We both agreed to “do our homework” that night and compare notes the next day.
That night, after I completed my part of the bargain, I was overcome with emotions that needed to be sorted out before I was going to get a good night sleep. Since I believe in “striking when the iron is hot,” the following is what I thought immediately after my initial viewing with maybe a few hours of contemplation.
First of all I have to say up front that Ridley Scott’s (Gladiator) “Black Hawk Down” is a good, bordering on great, movie. Artistically speaking, its lineage can be traced back directly to Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece “Apocalypse Now.” There are scenes that are beautifully eerie and mesmerizing such as the helicopters flying in formation over an otherworldly desert landscape while synthesized African music plays in the background. Also like “Apocalypse,” one of the themes seemed to be the human cost when a government uses the military in pursuit of political goals and the general insanity that permeates a situation when soldiers are forced to distinguish friend and foe in a split second with their decision being the difference between life and death.
But where Coppola brazenly attacked his subject with unapologetic artistry and surreal context, “Hawk” attempts to be realistic, with graphic battle scenes and tittle cards announcing location, date and even exact times of the action unfolding before us giving the perception of authenticity. It is based on a disastrous US operation against a Somalian warlord in the early 1990s that left many dead and wounded. The event also produced some extremely demoralizing footage of a naked American soldier being dragged through the streets of the capital Mogadishu by the warlord’s troops and townspeople alike. I remember when it happened but do not know any of the details so I will give the filmmaker the benefit of the doubt of the accuracy of his script.
While most of the film’s look and narrative style owe to Coppola, the amped up battle scenes and the documentary style shots owe everything to Steven Spielberg’s “Ryan.” The one thing “Saving Private Ryan” did was “up the ante” on a tried and true genre: The War Movie. I don’t think you can make one depicting battle these days without some kind of graphic violence. Although, these two films share some brutal imagery (Severed limbs, point blank shootings, etc.), the tone in which they are presented is radically different and forms the crux of my theory.
While “Private Ryan” shows military life and combat specifically, as miserable, appalling and pointless, “Black Hawk Down” plays as a recruiting film for the armed services.
Too harsh? OK, I’ll put it another way.
Although both films depict pretty deplorable conditions, you leave one saying, “I would never, ever want to go through that” and the other saying, “I want to be with those guys!”
Keep in mind I only saw “Hawk” once and “Ryan” many times so I will fully illustrate my theory with just two specific scenes that depict pretty much the same exact thing.
What’s the difference?
Like I tried to convey in my initial description, the “Private Ryan” scene is done very straightforward. Men make it to sea wall; One by one they are killed trying to outflank the gun; Gun is finally destroyed; The men advance to the next obstacle. No slick cuts, cutesey close-ups or background music. The actions alone are astounding enough and required no padding to create riveting film. Less is more.
The “Hawk” material, on the other hand, has:
All that was missing was a spirited high-five and a hearty “Bool-Ya.”
I remember when I saw “Ryan” in the theatre, at the moment when the German position is blown up, there was a spattering of applause from about three or four people in a “We got em!” type of rah-rah way. I didn’t clap or cheer. Neither did most of the audience.
At that moment I realized that most war movies, up until that time, emphasized the sense of accomplishment and/or triumph of the situation, which I’m sure does exist to a certain degree, when men are pitted together in a titanic life and death struggle. But these movies also completely ignored the fear, pain and death which is undeniably the more overwhelming reality of combat. Well, “Ryan” did not look away and, as a result, effectively conveyed the tragedy of it all. Kudos to Steven Spielberg.
I did not see “Black Hawk” in a theatre but, judging from the way it was edited, I AM SURE there was out right fist pumping and cheering when “that bad man got his.”
Do you see what I mean?
I think the “Ryan” scene was unflinchingly real although it circumstances are rarely, if ever, depicted. Pre-Ryan war movies always accented the honor and dignity of battlefield death but never the TRUE horror of it. How many times do you think a scene like this actually played out in real life? How long do you think it took the people who witnessed it to forget it? My guess is it haunted them for the rest of their lives.
I remember one time seeing a Vietnam veteran being interviewed, I believe on one of those History Channel shows, and he was talking about the absurdity of traditional death scenes in movies. This veteran said: (Paraphrasing)
Doesn’t this description fit the “Black Hawk Down”scene to a tee? Maybe with one small proviso. The dying/sleeping man, before expiring, has to give a “Win one for the Gipper” type inspirational epitaph, implying that he has no regrets.
I know I said I would only talk about two scenes but I do have to mention one last thing. Tom Sizemore happens to be in both movies. I like him, as an actor, and when I see that he is in the cast of whatever movie I am about to watch, I freely admit that my hopes are slightly raised.
Well, as luck would have it, in these two pictures he plays pretty much the same exact character: A grizzled, hardened veteran Sgt/Captain. He plays a “man’s man” who knows how to get things done.
Here is some of his "Ryan" dialogue, in the scene when the Captain (Tom Hanks) asks him his advice on that age old question “Should we stay or should we go?”
When I first saw this scene I immediately thought it was ridiculous. The movie takes place during World War II, the last “good war.” The whole country was united then and the fighting men in the field had purpose, making the world safe for democracy, etc. etc. The idea of a soldier questioning why they were in Europe sounded like a piece of revisionist history written by a man whose formative years were the turbulent sixties when dissent was common.
The irony, in that cynical view of why he gives this response, is that Sizemore’s character suggests they do the “heroic” thing and defend the bridge, an act which would greatly help the whole army but would put themselves in serious jeopardy, when they can easily “cut and run” and save their own asses. That option would definitely be safer. The reasoning the Sizemore character uses is pragmatic with a hint of “higher purpose.” He is no saint, just a man who never asked to be in such a terrible predicament, but will try to do the best he can. Again, Kudos to Steven Spielberg.
Compare that to Sizemore’s character’s actions in “Black Hawk Down.” After it has become obvious that something has gone terribly wrong, he returns to the base with three Hum-Vees full of wounded. He has just run a gauntlet of enemy fire through narrow streets. So bad was the situation, the driver of the vehicle was shot in the face and blinded but “kept his foot on the gas” while Sizemore, riding shot gun and, wounded himself, manned the wheel.
After dressing his wounds and knowing that “his guys” were still caught “out there,” he immediately gears up and joins the second rescue detachment. When the Colonel tells him that he is too banged up and shouldn’t go on this mission, Sizemore looks at him steely eyed, I believe with dried blood still on the corner of his mouth. He then walks past the Colonel and boards a Hum-Vee leading the procession out the gates of the base. The whole scene plays out with a dramatic musical back score.
I half expected Sylvester Stallone to walk out shirtless, belts of ammo across his chest, asking, “Do we get to win this time Colonel?”
But in hindsight, I realize that whole way of looking at the “Greatest Generation” is a perception that has rose to the level of mythology. I bet a lot of “grunts” wondered what the hell they were doing there and weren’t so keen about getting killed and wanted nothing else but to go home. Read Norman Mailer’s (A WW II Veteran) semi-autobiographical novel, “The Naked and the Dead” for a much more complex portrait of the American fighting man during the war rather than the sanitized, glorified versions which have become more commonplace in the last ten years.
And, as these veterans die off, as they exit the world of flesh and blood, it seems they are destined to take up permanent residence in the mythological fantasy land of heroes, devoid of real feelings and desires which, in my opinion, denies them the very humanity that they earned when they did these incredible things over 60 years ago.
Not only does the deifying of the veterans of the Second World War do them a great disservice, but it also creates a never existed ideal that can continuously be swung like a hammer, used to prevent any attempt to change the status-quo.
Again, I want to reiterate, that the above thoughts came to my mind while, and right after, I initially viewed the movie. And I thought the movie itself was pretty good and I am not disputing “the facts” and events depicted. But I do believe there is a direct connection between control of media and film presentation and the rise of militarism in western society. From newspapers to radio to newsreels to feature films to the mother of all “attitude dictators” television.
Next stop the Internet!
As far as my theory applies to these two specific films I can boil it down to something tangible. Not that long ago, I believe on the anniversary of D-Day June 6, there was somewhat of a controversy about airing “Saving Private Ryan” uncut on network TV which was planned as a tribute to the troops. Many affiliates bailed because the propaganda wing of this administration (Known in polite society as the FCC) was possibly going to fine any station running the film because the word “Fuck” appeared several times.
So, because there were some curse words here and there (and we know nobody uses bad language in real life!) the FCC denied millions of Americans a somewhat realistic glance at what these poor bastards had to go through 60 years ago.
Do you believe that was the reason?
I think if the networks decided to give “Black Hawk Down” the same uncut treatment, after some empty Kentucky windage, the FCC would have no problem with it.
I remember seeing separate interviews with Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic, both Vietnam combat veterans turned anti-war protesters, where they both said they grew up on John Wayne and other such war movies and assumed, or anticipated, that the way these films depicted war was the way it probably really was.
So, they joined up when they could, after all there was a war on (Vietnam) and, according to the movies they were fed from birth, army life was heroic, brave, honorable and downright fun. Most importantly, it was their duty God damn it!
Needless to say, when they arrived “In Country” they found out that this was not the case at all. Stone came out of his experience, physically intact, but mentally scarred for life. Kovic was severely wounded, “John Wayning it,” (His quote) and is paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life.
Check out two films directed by Oliver Stone that directly deals with the disillusionment of blind patriotism. The Best Picture Oscar winner Platoon (1986) which is the fictionalized version of his own experience in Vietnam and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), which is the Ron Kovic story based on his autobiography. After watching those two films, try to cheer at another man being maimed or killed again.
A good friend of mine heard me ranting and raving in my cube the day after I brought back the “Black Hawk Down” DVD. Not taking my demented, abstract musings too seriously (Can you really blame her?) She asked to borrow it to check it out for herself. I was excited because now I was going to get some kind of confirmation or repudiation of my ever expanding ability to connect seemingly harmless and mundane aspects of our society with the greater deteriation and bizarre right wing fascist turn our culture has taken.
The next day she came back with the disc indicating that she watched it. The moment of truth had arrived
When I asked what she thought of the movie, my friend said that, “…it is war for the MTV generation.”
I think she was more insightful than she realized.
Sixth Army
One day, making the rounds in the cubicle world, I was waxing poetic, ranting and raving actually, to anyone who would listen, about how good a movie I thought Saving Private Ryan (1998) was. I went into my, “When it was first released…” story and how, at the Ziegfield Theatre, with a crisp 70 mm print and incredible digital surround sound that it was, by far, the most engrossing film experience I ever had. I actually paid to see it twice.
Upon hearing my hyperbole, an esteemed colleague of mine was intrigued and asked me to lend him the DVD. Always eager to spread “the word,” the very next day I brought in my copy, all excited with anticipation on hearing the musings of someone who was seeing this landmark film for the first time.
When I presented the well worn disc to the target of my prostelezation, he had a surprise for me. He pulled out a copy of Black Hawk Down (2001) and told me it was I who was in for a treat because “Hawk” was “great” “gritty” “realistic” etc. I was happy because, one, I have a fondness for the war genre and, two, I heard good things about “Black Hawk” and always wanted to see it but never got around to it. We both agreed to “do our homework” that night and compare notes the next day.
That night, after I completed my part of the bargain, I was overcome with emotions that needed to be sorted out before I was going to get a good night sleep. Since I believe in “striking when the iron is hot,” the following is what I thought immediately after my initial viewing with maybe a few hours of contemplation.
First of all I have to say up front that Ridley Scott’s (Gladiator) “Black Hawk Down” is a good, bordering on great, movie. Artistically speaking, its lineage can be traced back directly to Francis Ford Coppola’s masterpiece “Apocalypse Now.” There are scenes that are beautifully eerie and mesmerizing such as the helicopters flying in formation over an otherworldly desert landscape while synthesized African music plays in the background. Also like “Apocalypse,” one of the themes seemed to be the human cost when a government uses the military in pursuit of political goals and the general insanity that permeates a situation when soldiers are forced to distinguish friend and foe in a split second with their decision being the difference between life and death.
But where Coppola brazenly attacked his subject with unapologetic artistry and surreal context, “Hawk” attempts to be realistic, with graphic battle scenes and tittle cards announcing location, date and even exact times of the action unfolding before us giving the perception of authenticity. It is based on a disastrous US operation against a Somalian warlord in the early 1990s that left many dead and wounded. The event also produced some extremely demoralizing footage of a naked American soldier being dragged through the streets of the capital Mogadishu by the warlord’s troops and townspeople alike. I remember when it happened but do not know any of the details so I will give the filmmaker the benefit of the doubt of the accuracy of his script.
While most of the film’s look and narrative style owe to Coppola, the amped up battle scenes and the documentary style shots owe everything to Steven Spielberg’s “Ryan.” The one thing “Saving Private Ryan” did was “up the ante” on a tried and true genre: The War Movie. I don’t think you can make one depicting battle these days without some kind of graphic violence. Although, these two films share some brutal imagery (Severed limbs, point blank shootings, etc.), the tone in which they are presented is radically different and forms the crux of my theory.
While “Private Ryan” shows military life and combat specifically, as miserable, appalling and pointless, “Black Hawk Down” plays as a recruiting film for the armed services.
Too harsh? OK, I’ll put it another way.
Although both films depict pretty deplorable conditions, you leave one saying, “I would never, ever want to go through that” and the other saying, “I want to be with those guys!”
Keep in mind I only saw “Hawk” once and “Ryan” many times so I will fully illustrate my theory with just two specific scenes that depict pretty much the same exact thing.
No day at the beach.
War As Sport
1) In “Private Ryan’s” opening D-Day landing sequence, Tom Hanks and his men make it off the beach and are pinned down by a heavy German machine gun crew firmly entrenched on the sea wall. After several attempts and many casualties the gun emplacement is finally “taken out” by one of the principal characters, a southern sharpshooter who prays out loud before he takes every shot. The MG is seen from a distance semi-exploding with the two German corpses falling over the side.
2) In “Black Hawk,” the troops are pinned down in a building. The Somalian commander sits atop a flatbed truck, directing fire from a mobile light artillery piece, which is on another flatbed truck, manned by two or three other “skinnys,” who are raining shells on the American position. A detachment of three American Rangers are dispatched to “take it out.” They sneak up on the gunners and quietly strangle them. Then the Americans load the gun and point it at the command truck where the African Captain stands unaware he is now in the crosshairs of his own artillery. Finally he notices that the weapon is no longer firing at the Americans so he turns to see to his horror that his own gun is about to kill him which happens in a spectacular explosion.
What’s the difference?
Like I tried to convey in my initial description, the “Private Ryan” scene is done very straightforward. Men make it to sea wall; One by one they are killed trying to outflank the gun; Gun is finally destroyed; The men advance to the next obstacle. No slick cuts, cutesey close-ups or background music. The actions alone are astounding enough and required no padding to create riveting film. Less is more.
The “Hawk” material, on the other hand, has:
1) “Sneaking music” as the Rangers approach the first gun position.
2) A ridiculous, “Bruce Willisesque, How ya fellas doin’?” type one liner uttered by the American to the totally surprised “Skinnys,” who are manning the artillery.
3) A close-up of the African commander’s over the top facial expression which goes from anger, when he thinks his men are slacking off, to a cartoon like, “Whaaaaaaaat?!?!,” when he realizes he is about to get blasted with his own gun.
4) I THINK the explosion of the commander’s truck is in slow motion.
All that was missing was a spirited high-five and a hearty “Bool-Ya.”
I remember when I saw “Ryan” in the theatre, at the moment when the German position is blown up, there was a spattering of applause from about three or four people in a “We got em!” type of rah-rah way. I didn’t clap or cheer. Neither did most of the audience.
At that moment I realized that most war movies, up until that time, emphasized the sense of accomplishment and/or triumph of the situation, which I’m sure does exist to a certain degree, when men are pitted together in a titanic life and death struggle. But these movies also completely ignored the fear, pain and death which is undeniably the more overwhelming reality of combat. Well, “Ryan” did not look away and, as a result, effectively conveyed the tragedy of it all. Kudos to Steven Spielberg.
I did not see “Black Hawk” in a theatre but, judging from the way it was edited, I AM SURE there was out right fist pumping and cheering when “that bad man got his.”
/>
No man left behind...
Death Be Not Proud
1) In taking a machine gun nest, the company medic (Giovanni Ribisi) is shot several times. After the smoke clears, he lays in the grass, mortally wounded, while the rest of the men gather around him and feebly try to stop the bleeding. They helplessly watch while he cries for his mother pleading that he doesn’t want to die. Finally he passes away and the rest of the men stare solemnly at his lifeless body.
2) On returning to their base, a soldier is shot in the street and is severely wounded. The other men gather him up and get him inside, putting him on a makeshift operating table. The company medic looks at him and realizes the wounded man’s chances are not good. After a failed attempt at removing the bullet all hope is pretty much lost. Eventually the dying man looks at the two soldiers who are trying to save his life and says something like, “Tell my kids I love them,” and quietly passes away. The two men stare solemnly at the lifeless body.
Do you see what I mean?
I think the “Ryan” scene was unflinchingly real although it circumstances are rarely, if ever, depicted. Pre-Ryan war movies always accented the honor and dignity of battlefield death but never the TRUE horror of it. How many times do you think a scene like this actually played out in real life? How long do you think it took the people who witnessed it to forget it? My guess is it haunted them for the rest of their lives.
I remember one time seeing a Vietnam veteran being interviewed, I believe on one of those History Channel shows, and he was talking about the absurdity of traditional death scenes in movies. This veteran said: (Paraphrasing)
The way Hollywood would have you believe it is one minute the guy is laying there, he closes his eyes and then he is dead. Nice and clean. Like he is going to sleep. Well let me tell you it ain’t always like that.
Doesn’t this description fit the “Black Hawk Down”scene to a tee? Maybe with one small proviso. The dying/sleeping man, before expiring, has to give a “Win one for the Gipper” type inspirational epitaph, implying that he has no regrets.
Two takes on the same guy.
Sizemore
I know I said I would only talk about two scenes but I do have to mention one last thing. Tom Sizemore happens to be in both movies. I like him, as an actor, and when I see that he is in the cast of whatever movie I am about to watch, I freely admit that my hopes are slightly raised.
Well, as luck would have it, in these two pictures he plays pretty much the same exact character: A grizzled, hardened veteran Sgt/Captain. He plays a “man’s man” who knows how to get things done.
Here is some of his "Ryan" dialogue, in the scene when the Captain (Tom Hanks) asks him his advice on that age old question “Should we stay or should we go?”
I don't know. Part of me thinks the kid's right. He asks what he's done to deserve this. He wants to stay here, fine. Let's leave him and go home. But then another part of me thinks, what if by some miracle we stay, then actually make it out of here. Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was the one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful mess. Like you said, Captain, maybe we do that, we all earn the right to go home.
When I first saw this scene I immediately thought it was ridiculous. The movie takes place during World War II, the last “good war.” The whole country was united then and the fighting men in the field had purpose, making the world safe for democracy, etc. etc. The idea of a soldier questioning why they were in Europe sounded like a piece of revisionist history written by a man whose formative years were the turbulent sixties when dissent was common.
The irony, in that cynical view of why he gives this response, is that Sizemore’s character suggests they do the “heroic” thing and defend the bridge, an act which would greatly help the whole army but would put themselves in serious jeopardy, when they can easily “cut and run” and save their own asses. That option would definitely be safer. The reasoning the Sizemore character uses is pragmatic with a hint of “higher purpose.” He is no saint, just a man who never asked to be in such a terrible predicament, but will try to do the best he can. Again, Kudos to Steven Spielberg.
Compare that to Sizemore’s character’s actions in “Black Hawk Down.” After it has become obvious that something has gone terribly wrong, he returns to the base with three Hum-Vees full of wounded. He has just run a gauntlet of enemy fire through narrow streets. So bad was the situation, the driver of the vehicle was shot in the face and blinded but “kept his foot on the gas” while Sizemore, riding shot gun and, wounded himself, manned the wheel.
After dressing his wounds and knowing that “his guys” were still caught “out there,” he immediately gears up and joins the second rescue detachment. When the Colonel tells him that he is too banged up and shouldn’t go on this mission, Sizemore looks at him steely eyed, I believe with dried blood still on the corner of his mouth. He then walks past the Colonel and boards a Hum-Vee leading the procession out the gates of the base. The whole scene plays out with a dramatic musical back score.
I half expected Sylvester Stallone to walk out shirtless, belts of ammo across his chest, asking, “Do we get to win this time Colonel?”
But in hindsight, I realize that whole way of looking at the “Greatest Generation” is a perception that has rose to the level of mythology. I bet a lot of “grunts” wondered what the hell they were doing there and weren’t so keen about getting killed and wanted nothing else but to go home. Read Norman Mailer’s (A WW II Veteran) semi-autobiographical novel, “The Naked and the Dead” for a much more complex portrait of the American fighting man during the war rather than the sanitized, glorified versions which have become more commonplace in the last ten years.
And, as these veterans die off, as they exit the world of flesh and blood, it seems they are destined to take up permanent residence in the mythological fantasy land of heroes, devoid of real feelings and desires which, in my opinion, denies them the very humanity that they earned when they did these incredible things over 60 years ago.
Not only does the deifying of the veterans of the Second World War do them a great disservice, but it also creates a never existed ideal that can continuously be swung like a hammer, used to prevent any attempt to change the status-quo.
Epilogue
Again, I want to reiterate, that the above thoughts came to my mind while, and right after, I initially viewed the movie. And I thought the movie itself was pretty good and I am not disputing “the facts” and events depicted. But I do believe there is a direct connection between control of media and film presentation and the rise of militarism in western society. From newspapers to radio to newsreels to feature films to the mother of all “attitude dictators” television.
Next stop the Internet!
As far as my theory applies to these two specific films I can boil it down to something tangible. Not that long ago, I believe on the anniversary of D-Day June 6, there was somewhat of a controversy about airing “Saving Private Ryan” uncut on network TV which was planned as a tribute to the troops. Many affiliates bailed because the propaganda wing of this administration (Known in polite society as the FCC) was possibly going to fine any station running the film because the word “Fuck” appeared several times.
So, because there were some curse words here and there (and we know nobody uses bad language in real life!) the FCC denied millions of Americans a somewhat realistic glance at what these poor bastards had to go through 60 years ago.
Do you believe that was the reason?
I think if the networks decided to give “Black Hawk Down” the same uncut treatment, after some empty Kentucky windage, the FCC would have no problem with it.
I remember seeing separate interviews with Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic, both Vietnam combat veterans turned anti-war protesters, where they both said they grew up on John Wayne and other such war movies and assumed, or anticipated, that the way these films depicted war was the way it probably really was.
So, they joined up when they could, after all there was a war on (Vietnam) and, according to the movies they were fed from birth, army life was heroic, brave, honorable and downright fun. Most importantly, it was their duty God damn it!
Needless to say, when they arrived “In Country” they found out that this was not the case at all. Stone came out of his experience, physically intact, but mentally scarred for life. Kovic was severely wounded, “John Wayning it,” (His quote) and is paralyzed from the waist down for the rest of his life.
Check out two films directed by Oliver Stone that directly deals with the disillusionment of blind patriotism. The Best Picture Oscar winner Platoon (1986) which is the fictionalized version of his own experience in Vietnam and Born on the Fourth of July (1989), which is the Ron Kovic story based on his autobiography. After watching those two films, try to cheer at another man being maimed or killed again.
A good friend of mine heard me ranting and raving in my cube the day after I brought back the “Black Hawk Down” DVD. Not taking my demented, abstract musings too seriously (Can you really blame her?) She asked to borrow it to check it out for herself. I was excited because now I was going to get some kind of confirmation or repudiation of my ever expanding ability to connect seemingly harmless and mundane aspects of our society with the greater deteriation and bizarre right wing fascist turn our culture has taken.
The next day she came back with the disc indicating that she watched it. The moment of truth had arrived
When I asked what she thought of the movie, my friend said that, “…it is war for the MTV generation.”
I think she was more insightful than she realized.
Sixth Army
posted by Larry B | 6:50 PM
1 Comments:
Ah yes, the music. I think you are completely correct about Ridley's manipulating techniques. But it is not only the music because, if that were the case, the movie would not have been as successful.
It is when he pulls the "tri-fecta" of shamelessness that is when, he, in my eyes, gets out of control. The use of quick cutting, low-angle=good guy/high-angle=bad guy camera shots and music (Don't forget that not only did he use the old "Be all that you can be" style non-sense but pulls out some House of Pain rapping to create, as Erin aptly put it, an atmosphere primed for "skinny butt kicking.")
Doing a quick IMDB search on Mr. Scott, some tittles leap out at you suggesting that this guy has a real glorious military death fetish. Not only do you have "Down" which should have been renamed "Post-Ryan Top Gun" but there is also:
Gladiator (2000) a film that reeks so much of unchecked testosterone and faith in military honor over civilian government that I could have sworn that images of naked men masturbating were "subliminally" spliced into the many confusingly edited blood soaked fight sequences.
G.I. Jane (1997) a movie so high on masculine militarism, it has it's marquee female lead Demi Moore punch her nemesis in the balls and shout out, "Suck my dick!" Oh, I forgot to mention, that scary piece of dialogue is supposed to be her triumphant, "Declaration of Independence." Only a warped freak would think this is cool.
And then there is the brand new Kingdom of Heaven (2005) which is a sweeping epic about that truly enlightened period of history known as The Crusades. I can only imagine what Ridley thinks is the important lesson of that sad chapter in human events when thousands of Europeans, who believed they were spoken to by God, invaded the Middle East to "rescue" Jerusalem from barbaric Muslim heretics. Of course this rescue effort, which lasted hundreds of years, involved wholesale slaughter, rape and pillaging that has left a festering wound on Caucasian/Arab relations that has lasted about a thousand years so far. As a funny little aside, these "Crusading Men of God" murdered every Jew they could find as they marched across Europe on their way to The Holy Land. That part, as you probably figured out, didn't make the final cut. Ridley personally rewrote those scenes shifting the focus from a Crusader brutally sodomizing an attractive young Hungarian Jewish girl (Brittany Murphy) after he has just made her watch him decapitate her father with a broad sword, to unflattering images of the Muslim commander Saladin (Eric Roberts in blackface) dancing animalistically over a semi-nude dead white woman (Brittany Murphy), yelling "Oooga Booga, Oooga Booga" over and over while loud bongo drums play on the soundtrack.
On the other hand, Scott also directed Alien, Blade Runner and Matchstick Men so he has shown he can make films that embrace universal hope and love with art and wit.
But, after perusing some of his work, I have come to the conclusion that the "Pied Piper of Butchery," has received W-2s from Halliburton, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Grumman which contained some seriously gaudy numbers which reflected the rather large sums of money he received for "services rendered," throughout his illustrious career.
And about your closing comment, I admit that I am speechless and must turn to the only man possible who can express how I feel. In the immortal words of Elvis Arron Presley:
"Thank you...Thank you very much."
On second thought, without a ridiculously stereotyped deep southern baritone, I guess that quote is pretty ordinary.
Sorry.
Post a Comment
<< Home