ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited February 2015
ZDK was exceptionally effective at reinforcing whatever biases the viewer wanted reinforced.
It's interesting, though, in that it can run both ways. Some people praise it for being pro torture, some people praise it for being anti torture. Meanwhile, some people denounce it for being pro torture, and some denounce it for being anti torture.
It all seems an effective argument in favor of the film not having a clear message so much as just providing a neutral and nuanced portrait of what went down.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
All news are a man-made narrative work, yes.
Oh, I get it. You're doing a bit here, about how objective truth is always different from any one person's blah blah blah
When I said ZDT was fictional I meant it in the sense that it is not 'non-fiction'. Torture in the film got results, torture in reality had nothing to do with Bin Laden being found.
But this discussion over 'is everything fiction?' is much better than discussing torture. (The answer is yes, everything is fiction, but to varying degrees)
Except that the film is fictional and that is not how it went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
All news are a man-made narrative work, yes.
Oh, I get it. You're doing a bit here, about how objective truth is always different from any one person's blah blah blah
It's not really a bit. Look at all the "documentary" shows about complete bullshit. Ancient aliens, Obama conspiracies, Lizard person Illuminati, etc. Just because someone has a story to tell about supposedly factual material doesn't make it non-fictional. We can classify it that way if we wish, for genre documentation purposes, but we shouldn't start judging films like ZDT for not portraying things as they exactly were for this reason, unless there's some other factor, like some political agenda or whatnot. From all accounts, ZDT had no real political agenda and let people come to their own conclusions.
Or, you can look at interviews of people who have been in documentaries and have hated how they were portrayed. Sure, in some cases like Borat, their complaints aren't legitimate. But there are plenty of people who dislike how they were portrayed, often it is simply the director concentrating on one aspect of their life while ignoring another. It might make for a better movie but for the people who are featured it is an inaccurate portrayal at best. Directors of documentaries create narratives out of reality, that is fiction. These narratives must always ignore or emphasise things, or else tell white lies in order to make a documentary worth watching (assuming the creator has the very best of intentions, otherwise they'll just lie). Because real life isn't a narrative.
An example of this that I just read was the 7 Up documentary(s) about children growing up that spanned decades. The director thought that one of the children would turn to a life of crime and so shot their interviews in dilapidated areas so that it would create a narrative once the person did turn to crime. But they didn't. Nothing that was shot was fictional, it was a real interview, real nearby location, but the choices the director made shaped (or attempted to shape) the narrative.
Most directors don't need to worry about the narrative changing on them because they aren't shooting over several decades and editing as they go, they have the luxury of looking at their footage as a whole and cutting and editing it to make it do what they want.
Reality tv uses editing all the time to create plots out of thin air or to make minor things seem significant. Documentary makers don't do it to the same extent that reality tv does it but the fact is that they cannot not do it. It is integral to film making. Or book writing, or news or...
A lot (most?) of the time, what "really happened" isn't all that interesting, and you need to hammer it into a shape that resembles what really happened, but is more coherent and/or supports the narrative.
Example: Henry & June The movie's about an all-ways love triangle between Anais Nin, Tropic of Cancer author Henry Miller, and Miller's wife, June based on Nin's diary. It's all quite sordid. There's a scene where
Nin and her hapless husband go to a brothel and pay for a show. They make a point of the fact that she selects a tall blonde aggressive woman (that looks like June) and a small dark-haired, submissive woman (that looks like Nin) as the two participants in the show, mirroring Nin's fascination with the passionate June. In the diary, however, the dark-haired one is the aggressive one and the blonde is the submissive, and it's all very much just a description of something that happened that day in good ol' swingin' Paris, not terribly symbolic at all. Understandably, the screen writer and director decided to punch up the original material to increase the focus on the women's relationship by switching around the attributes of the prostitutes.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
I did find it very jarring in Hurt Locker how much it seemed like that one tiny EOD team was on independent ops. At times it seemed like they were the only U.S. forces over there. There's focusing on your main characters sure OK, but giving the sense that they were not part of a large occupation force, working in a big organization, with a chain of command above them I dunno. Wasn't in the army myself, but I question wether anyone is really that independent.
We saw Gentlemen Broncos this weekend and I kind of liked it. I've never seen Napoleon Dynomite so I had no basis for what the creators did; it had some serious problems but the characters were all painfully recognizable and the whole thing just DRIPPED style.
Then I went online and found out it was so universally reviled they actually pulled it from ever appearing in theaters.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
I did find it very jarring in Hurt Locker how much it seemed like that one tiny EOD team was on independent ops. At times it seemed like they were the only U.S. forces over there. There's focusing on your main characters sure OK, but giving the sense that they were not part of a large occupation force, working in a big organization, with a chain of command above them I dunno. Wasn't in the army myself, but I question wether anyone is really that independent.
EOD tends to be in their own little world. Yeah, the movie exaggerated how much, but they fall under other units in deployments pretty much for logistical purposes, and are left to their own devices for the most part.
When I said ZDT was fictional I meant it in the sense that it is not 'non-fiction'. Torture in the film got results, torture in reality had nothing to do with Bin Laden being found.
That's what we're saying specifically didn't happen. I don't get how people make that read on it. The CIA's shift throughout the film is what worked.
In Bigelow's own words:
Those of us who work in the arts know that depiction is not endorsement. If it was, no artist would be able to paint inhumane practices, no author could write about them, and no filmmaker could delve into the thorny subjects of our time.
This is an important principle to stand up for, and it bears repeating. For confusing depiction with endorsement is the first step toward chilling any American artist's ability and right to shine a light on dark deeds, especially when those deeds are cloaked in layers of secrecy and government obfuscation.
...
I think Osama bin Laden was found due to ingenious detective work. Torture was, however, as we all know, employed in the early years of the hunt. That doesn't mean it was the key to finding Bin Laden. It means it is a part of the story we couldn't ignore. War, obviously, isn't pretty, and we were not interested in portraying this military action as free of moral consequences.
Jibba on
+2
Options
TexiKenDammit!That fish really got me!Registered Userregular
you...you mean you can't just walk up to Brad Pitt's mansion and ask him to read your script and star in it?
But The Simpsons showed LA to be such a nice, happy place, a shelter from the greedy people of middle America.
The King's Speech was pretty much financed by attaching Geoffrey Rush, who they got by... Going to his house in Melbourne and stuffing the script in his mailbox. A week later they got an irate phone call from his agent, saying "Don't you EVER pull that shit again... But Geoffrey liked the script and wants to meet".
On the other hand, I've seen people like Eric Bana straight up shoot people down who've asked if he'd be interested in helping with some student films. One of the most dreaded questions for established people in the industry is "Will you read my script?"
I absolutely understand actors just saying no first and the catch 22 they're put in; say yes to reading a script and you invite people into your world who could hang on, use your name and just be pains in the ass (not counting the crazies), and if you don't accept whatever they have you're a dick, but you say no right away people just assume you're an elitist dick.
What I'm surprised most of all by what you wrote is that an Australian actor is actually living in Australia and not L.A. a zing!
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
So pretty much awesome?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
I never got the vibe of hurt locker being realistic, I mainly got the vibe of feeling disconnected and lost. And it delivered that for me in spades. Been a fair while since I saw it though, so might just be misremembering.
But if people find it insulting that's too bad. I'm am however unsure if a movie depicting actual war could actually be enjoyable, since movies are almost always abstractions and followers of their own internal logic and symbolism.
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
Renner's character was never meant to be realistic or a genuine representation of bomb tech's, he was pure id and a metaphor for the ideas of the movie.
+3
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
Renner's character was never meant to be realistic or a genuine representation of bomb tech's, he was pure id and a metaphor for the ideas of the movie.
The guy from the article I posted had it right: It was a superhero movie. To necessitate a superhero movie, everyone else has to be weak and worthless. Done.
It was also lauded as some sort of window into the war for the civilian population. It is not. It's laughably ridiculous. The fact that the general American public thinks it's such a great movie just kind of pisses me off more.
To describe how soldiers feel about it, it has more in common with blaxploitation films and Rambo III than it does any other war movie. It could have been on the Grindhouse trailers and we'd feel pretty certain it belonged there.
Hahah hang on my sides are hurting because i just read Hurt Locker being called the Hackers of war movies when American Sniperpaganda exist.
Shit, did no one see Fury? There is half a face hanging off a tank dashboard.
American Sniper glossed over PTSD then gave us a pointless, meaningless text screen but that's okay because AMERICAN HERO FUCK YEA. Even though his real name was American Psycho and his book largely full of lies? okay sure.
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
Renner's character was never meant to be realistic or a genuine representation of bomb tech's, he was pure id and a metaphor for the ideas of the movie.
The guy from the article I posted had it right: It was a superhero movie. To necessitate a superhero movie, everyone else has to be weak and worthless. Done.
It was also lauded as some sort of window into the war for the civilian population. It is not. It's laughably ridiculous. The fact that the general American public thinks it's such a great movie just kind of pisses me off more.
To describe how soldiers feel about it, it has more in common with blaxploitation films and Rambo III than it does any other war movie. It could have been on the Grindhouse trailers and we'd feel pretty certain it belonged there.
Fuck that movie.
Do you hate Apocalypse Now, too? Neither were really trying to be a window to the real war. They're both insane and thought provoking idea films inspired by their respective times.
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
American Sniper was boring. I think the fact that it's a biopic takes all the tension out of the film- you know Kyle dies here at home and not overseas, so he's just as mortal as Superman during all those action scenes.
Generation Kill comes far closer to being this war's Vietnam films.
The Hurt Locker is still the only really brilliant film we've gotten out of it. I can't really see anything ever topping it, that was pretty much a perfect film.
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
Renner's character was never meant to be realistic or a genuine representation of bomb tech's, he was pure id and a metaphor for the ideas of the movie.
The guy from the article I posted had it right: It was a superhero movie. To necessitate a superhero movie, everyone else has to be weak and worthless. Done.
It was also lauded as some sort of window into the war for the civilian population. It is not. It's laughably ridiculous. The fact that the general American public thinks it's such a great movie just kind of pisses me off more.
To describe how soldiers feel about it, it has more in common with blaxploitation films and Rambo III than it does any other war movie. It could have been on the Grindhouse trailers and we'd feel pretty certain it belonged there.
Fuck that movie.
Do you hate Apocalypse Now, too? Neither were really trying to be a window to the real war. They're both insane and thought provoking idea films inspired by their respective times.
Apocalypse Now had ideas. It had direction. It worked outside of its message. It at no point presented Martin Sheen as an unstoppable Action Hero
What is the idea behind The Hurt Locker? "War sucks, but civilian life sucks so I can't wait to go back!"? "You are a SUPERHERO because every single other person in the Iraq war is incompetent and you need the bomb guy to stop a taxi cab!"?
What was the idea that The Hurt Locker presented?
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
+4
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Hahah hang on my sides are hurting because i just read Hurt Locker being called the Hackers of war movies when American Sniperpaganda exist.
Shit, did no one see Fury? There is half a face hanging off a tank dashboard.
American Sniper glossed over PTSD then gave us a pointless, meaningless text screen but that's okay because AMERICAN HERO FUCK YEA. Even though his real name was American Psycho and his book largely full of lies? okay sure.
So, what's the actual difference?
I put American Sniper, The Hurt Locker, and all these other movies that interject a "message" inbetween wire stunts and amazing feats of derring do (Platoon, I'm looking at you) in the same category of bullshit. We only know American Sniper is bullshit because the guy who it was made about was pretty much made entirely of lies. The Hurt Locker is the same fucking movie, to me anyway, because it's the ONE MAN ARMY RAAAH with no character arc and superficial conflict with the penalties of glory in war.
Three Kings was an obvious entertainment vehicle, pretty sweet flick. All of these other movies try to present themselves as legitimate and I think that gets me the most.
Flags of our Fathers was about as good as it gets in this department. Eastwood knocked it out of the park.
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Nothing, and that element pissed me off as well, it just doesn't negate the whole movie for me.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Nothing, and that element pissed me off as well, it just doesn't negate the whole movie for me.
It did for me.
#1 - Renner needs to be the super badass.
#2 - Everyone else is useless.
So many scenes make no sense. The butcher? Why run towards the guy? Move left or right for a sight picture and drop his ass if he doesn't comply with the first order.
War isn't even presented in a realistic fashion, so why the hell would the message that "War is Addictive" resonate with me? If I went over there and I was Arnold Schwarzenegger I might find it addictive as well.
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
He wasn't. He made mistakes, got injured, and got his guys hurt. He was put through a lot of shit but still went back there because he felt like he had a purpose. I'm not seeing the unstoppable war machine angle, Anthony Mackie kills more people than he did.
Restrepo and it's followup Korengal were both great and gave voice to the ordinary soldier to tell things how they saw and felt it. Just posting that in the off chance anyone here hasn't heard of them.
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Nothing, and that element pissed me off as well, it just doesn't negate the whole movie for me.
It did for me.
#1 - Renner needs to be the super badass.
#2 - Everyone else is useless.
So many scenes make no sense. The butcher? Why run towards the guy? Move left or right for a sight picture and drop his ass if he doesn't comply with the first order.
War isn't even presented in a realistic fashion, so why the hell would the message that "War is Addictive" resonate with me? If I went over there and I was Arnold Schwarzenegger I might find it addictive as well.
First of all, stop being so fucking aggresive. Second, I said what I got out of the movie. If you didn't like it, fine - no need to be an asshole.
PS4 - Mrfuzzyhat
0
Options
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
Honestly the only thing that has come close to depicting being a soldier in a warzone correctly is Generation Kill. Intense boredom interrupted by intense adrenaline. Hurt Locker is a decent movie, not because of the "realism" (there isn't any) but because of what it's trying to say. I haven't seen American Sniper yet, but it's possible that the movie is propanda'ish, but still depicts military TTP's correctly.
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Nothing, and that element pissed me off as well, it just doesn't negate the whole movie for me.
It did for me.
#1 - Renner needs to be the super badass.
#2 - Everyone else is useless.
So many scenes make no sense. The butcher? Why run towards the guy? Move left or right for a sight picture and drop his ass if he doesn't comply with the first order.
War isn't even presented in a realistic fashion, so why the hell would the message that "War is Addictive" resonate with me? If I went over there and I was Arnold Schwarzenegger I might find it addictive as well.
First of all, stop being so fucking aggresive. Second, I said what I got out of the movie. If you didn't like it, fine - no need to be an asshole.
Wasn't attempting to be aggressive. I apologize for that. I get kind of worked up over it.
Posts
It's interesting, though, in that it can run both ways. Some people praise it for being pro torture, some people praise it for being anti torture. Meanwhile, some people denounce it for being pro torture, and some denounce it for being anti torture.
It all seems an effective argument in favor of the film not having a clear message so much as just providing a neutral and nuanced portrait of what went down.
All films are fictional.
...Documentaries?
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That Disney documentary about Lemmings.
Especially documentaries.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Insofar as they create through-lines that don't exist in reality, yes. The filmmaker has his own biases and wants to tell a particular story. A great many documentaries, accurately or not, are called out for being misleading. Just ask Michael Moore.
Some ≠ all.
If you're arguing that the sheer act of editing together footage and putting a narration over it changes it from reality, then you just said all news is fictional as well.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
All news are a man-made narrative work, yes.
Something something FoxNews hur hur hur.
Oh, I get it. You're doing a bit here, about how objective truth is always different from any one person's blah blah blah
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
But this discussion over 'is everything fiction?' is much better than discussing torture. (The answer is yes, everything is fiction, but to varying degrees)
It's not really a bit. Look at all the "documentary" shows about complete bullshit. Ancient aliens, Obama conspiracies, Lizard person Illuminati, etc. Just because someone has a story to tell about supposedly factual material doesn't make it non-fictional. We can classify it that way if we wish, for genre documentation purposes, but we shouldn't start judging films like ZDT for not portraying things as they exactly were for this reason, unless there's some other factor, like some political agenda or whatnot. From all accounts, ZDT had no real political agenda and let people come to their own conclusions.
An example of this that I just read was the 7 Up documentary(s) about children growing up that spanned decades. The director thought that one of the children would turn to a life of crime and so shot their interviews in dilapidated areas so that it would create a narrative once the person did turn to crime. But they didn't. Nothing that was shot was fictional, it was a real interview, real nearby location, but the choices the director made shaped (or attempted to shape) the narrative.
Most directors don't need to worry about the narrative changing on them because they aren't shooting over several decades and editing as they go, they have the luxury of looking at their footage as a whole and cutting and editing it to make it do what they want.
Reality tv uses editing all the time to create plots out of thin air or to make minor things seem significant. Documentary makers don't do it to the same extent that reality tv does it but the fact is that they cannot not do it. It is integral to film making. Or book writing, or news or...
Example: Henry & June The movie's about an all-ways love triangle between Anais Nin, Tropic of Cancer author Henry Miller, and Miller's wife, June based on Nin's diary. It's all quite sordid. There's a scene where
The Hurt Locker was completely unrealistic and most of my friends and I laughed at a lot of the things they think military people do or act like. Considering how much we heard how "Realistic" it was, it was a joke.
American Sniper more accurately captured that whole thing. Yes, reality is more boring than you'd think.
I didn't like it much. It's the Hackers of war movies.
Then I went online and found out it was so universally reviled they actually pulled it from ever appearing in theaters.
EOD tends to be in their own little world. Yeah, the movie exaggerated how much, but they fall under other units in deployments pretty much for logistical purposes, and are left to their own devices for the most part.
https://medium.com/war-is-boring/yes-the-hurt-locker-still-sucks-f41060a27b87
This Marines reaction was mine as well.
In Bigelow's own words:
I absolutely understand actors just saying no first and the catch 22 they're put in; say yes to reading a script and you invite people into your world who could hang on, use your name and just be pains in the ass (not counting the crazies), and if you don't accept whatever they have you're a dick, but you say no right away people just assume you're an elitist dick.
What I'm surprised most of all by what you wrote is that an Australian actor is actually living in Australia and not L.A. a zing!
So pretty much awesome?
It's pretty goddamned insulting, actually.
But if people find it insulting that's too bad. I'm am however unsure if a movie depicting actual war could actually be enjoyable, since movies are almost always abstractions and followers of their own internal logic and symbolism.
Renner's character was never meant to be realistic or a genuine representation of bomb tech's, he was pure id and a metaphor for the ideas of the movie.
The guy from the article I posted had it right: It was a superhero movie. To necessitate a superhero movie, everyone else has to be weak and worthless. Done.
It was also lauded as some sort of window into the war for the civilian population. It is not. It's laughably ridiculous. The fact that the general American public thinks it's such a great movie just kind of pisses me off more.
To describe how soldiers feel about it, it has more in common with blaxploitation films and Rambo III than it does any other war movie. It could have been on the Grindhouse trailers and we'd feel pretty certain it belonged there.
Fuck that movie.
Shit, did no one see Fury? There is half a face hanging off a tank dashboard.
American Sniper glossed over PTSD then gave us a pointless, meaningless text screen but that's okay because AMERICAN HERO FUCK YEA. Even though his real name was American Psycho and his book largely full of lies? okay sure.
Do you hate Apocalypse Now, too? Neither were really trying to be a window to the real war. They're both insane and thought provoking idea films inspired by their respective times.
Apocalypse Now had ideas. It had direction. It worked outside of its message. It at no point presented Martin Sheen as an unstoppable Action Hero
What is the idea behind The Hurt Locker? "War sucks, but civilian life sucks so I can't wait to go back!"? "You are a SUPERHERO because every single other person in the Iraq war is incompetent and you need the bomb guy to stop a taxi cab!"?
What was the idea that The Hurt Locker presented?
What exactly is it trying to say?
To me, it was that we as soldiers can get almost addicted to deploy and "normal" life doesn't cut it anymore. Then again YMMV.
So, what's the actual difference?
I put American Sniper, The Hurt Locker, and all these other movies that interject a "message" inbetween wire stunts and amazing feats of derring do (Platoon, I'm looking at you) in the same category of bullshit. We only know American Sniper is bullshit because the guy who it was made about was pretty much made entirely of lies. The Hurt Locker is the same fucking movie, to me anyway, because it's the ONE MAN ARMY RAAAH with no character arc and superficial conflict with the penalties of glory in war.
Three Kings was an obvious entertainment vehicle, pretty sweet flick. All of these other movies try to present themselves as legitimate and I think that gets me the most.
Flags of our Fathers was about as good as it gets in this department. Eastwood knocked it out of the park.
So what part of that necessitated Renner being an unstoppable war machine?
Nothing, and that element pissed me off as well, it just doesn't negate the whole movie for me.
It did for me.
#1 - Renner needs to be the super badass.
#2 - Everyone else is useless.
So many scenes make no sense. The butcher? Why run towards the guy? Move left or right for a sight picture and drop his ass if he doesn't comply with the first order.
War isn't even presented in a realistic fashion, so why the hell would the message that "War is Addictive" resonate with me? If I went over there and I was Arnold Schwarzenegger I might find it addictive as well.
He wasn't. He made mistakes, got injured, and got his guys hurt. He was put through a lot of shit but still went back there because he felt like he had a purpose. I'm not seeing the unstoppable war machine angle, Anthony Mackie kills more people than he did.
First of all, stop being so fucking aggresive. Second, I said what I got out of the movie. If you didn't like it, fine - no need to be an asshole.
Wasn't attempting to be aggressive. I apologize for that. I get kind of worked up over it.