Avatar! yawn

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

The problem with that point of view is that the American Indian is not in a position of power. there is no threat of communities on reservations in Oklahoma attacking settlements. By all accounts their violence was more defensive anyway. And, not for nothing, there have been literally thousands of films depicting Indian brutality. Some brilliant ("the searchers") some not (every western pre-"Stagecoach"). DWW is less finger pointy than accepting responsibility. The key is that it was made by a white American. The film, and its success, shows a willingness to own and learn from the past. very important in that regard. The film belies a very American attitude in that allows for mistakes made and moves to correct them. It's why the constitution has amendments.

 

Now this is coming from a guy who feel "Schindler's List" is too one-sided (it's true, I do). personally I feel DWW's honesty makes it a very "American" film.

 

First off, I appreciate the intelligent conversation with you and tgreg99.

 

Schindler's List as one-sided? What do you mean? It seems to me it's kind of hard to find any kind of sympathy for the SS.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Having been out here now for a brief period of time, one thing is very clear. While the people with the most press time are fairly left leaning (the actors, directors and top producers), the people with the real power in town (studios) are all run by HUGE conglomerates that are, by in large, very conservative by nature (Rupert Murdoch, Time Warner, General Electric, Sony and Disney). It's harder than you think to get a left leaning message film made INSIDE the Hollywood system. Most of them are made by independent producers who attach a name star to their "passion project".

 

While this is true, there is also a STRONG union presence in Hollywood (SAG, Writer's Guild) that has a lot more say than you might think. Also, there is a serious atmosphere of intimidation among actors and directors directed at those within their profession that don't have a simialr point of view. I read an interview with Tom Selleck (I think it was) talking about the pressure applied by liberals in the actor and director community that is tatamount to blacklisting of conservatives.

[Astrojanitor]

First off, I appreciate the intelligent conversation with you and tgreg99.

 

Schindler's List as one-sided? What do you mean? It seems to me it's kind of hard to find any kind of sympathy for the SS.

 

yeah, i always get surprised comments when I complain about "Schindler's List."

 

Without going into a huge dissertation about the film: I think Nazis=bad is pretty much a given. However there are reaction shots in SL of german soldiers standing next to piles of burning bodies and like cackling, firing their weapons into the mass, etc. After 2.5 hours it loses all power and meaning. By doing something as simple as having a couple reaction shots of a soldier being horrified at what all the pro-german rhetoric led to would be infinitely more powerful than the dozens of shots of helpless weeping children. I felt Spielberg was manipulative in a story that needed no manipulation. And that ending with the survivors at Schindler's tombstone? Yeesh. Turns the movie into sad porn.

 

It's not even really a point to create sympathy for the SS. Just not everyone on the one side is a raving sociopath and the other a saint. You just need a two second shot of a soldier looking nauseated and it's a whole different film.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's not even really a point to create sympathy for the SS. Just not everyone on the one side is a raving sociopath and the other a saint. You just need a two second shot of a soldier looking nauseated and it's a whole different film.

 

Seeing as Spielberg is Jewish, that might be a little much to expect. But yes, I agree to a point. However, the SS were fanatics, much like the Muslim terrorists today. Their devotion to Hitler was religious in nature. I'd also imagine that after a year or more of doing that ghoulish work, one would become somehwat numb to it.

[Astrojanitor]

While this is true, there is also a STRONG union presence in Hollywood (SAG, Writer's Guild) that has a lot more say than you might think. Also, there is a serious atmosphere of intimidation among actors and directors directed at those within their profession that don't have a simialr point of view. I read an interview with Tom Selleck (I think it was) talking about the pressure applied by liberals in the actor and director community that is tatamount to blacklisting of conservatives.

 

I believe it all comes down to trying to figure out what qualifies as a "liberal" bias, "conservative" bias or what is natural democrat/republican leanings coming out in a narrative. To paint with a wide brush here, ideologically speaking any film involving a noble military is going to be considered conservative by nature (full disclosure: I am about to marry a woman in the Army--I take offense at painting the military as "bad guys," not their fault they are stuck in a war) which explains Michael bay type entertainments. Military actually has to ok scripts for films that want to use their equipment. You see a tank or a fighter jet in a movie you are watching a conservative movie. But more than that any film that backs up or defends the status quo is inherently conservative while any film that criticizes the way things are is going to be progressive.

 

From a storytelling perspective there simply is not a whole lot of "everything is fine, all is well" stories to tell. Especially in these last 10 years. Which is not to say it is impossible. "24" could not be more conservative if it tried. "Disturbia" is a love letter to spying on your neighbors and then reporting it to the authorities. Michael Bay loves including long sensual images of the military stoicly taking care of business.

 

So really the cynic in me says Tom Sellick got blackballed because it's no longer 1983. I find films to be far more conservative to neutral than liberal.

[Astrojanitor]

Seeing as Spielberg is Jewish, that might be a little much to expect. But yes, I agree to a point. However, the SS were fanatics, much like the Muslim terrorists today. Their devotion to Hitler was religious in nature. I'd also imagine that after a year or more of doing that ghoulish work, one would become somehwat numb to it.

 

yeah, from a historical perspective I get that. But if you are trying to tell a story with a camera having everyone a maniac just gets redundant after awhile. I don't need an SS officer weeping at all the death, just a brief "what have we done" moment in order to drive the brutality home. All of the violence just feels empty to me after awhile...too one dimensional.

[John Adams]

You can't white-wash history, but you certainly CAN apply a tint to ensure a politically correct adherence to revisionist history. Wars of all kinds (including the conflict between the US Army and American Indians) are fought by two parties, and atrocities are committed by both sides. By portraying the American Indian as unadulterated victim, you indulge yet another attack on white America. Anyone who's intellectually honest can see that DWW is a not-so-subtle attack on America and it's treatment of non-white people.

 

The number of movies representing the DWW side of the story is far less than those showing the brave cowboys and evil Indians. It was another perspective--and a good one because so many Americans are foreign or resistant to it. Was it complete? No. But it showed some of the Indian savagery to settlers along with a sympathy for their culture.

[John Adams]

yeah man, that's true. but every now and again those tent pole movies kill it (and end up making giant piles of money) which makes the bland nothing blockbusters (Transformers 1/2, Avatar etc etc) even worse. Star Trek was actually a pretty decent movie. the Bourne movies are solid, The Dark Knight is amazing, the first 2 Spiderman movies are great...lots of examples.

 

Cameron, to me, has gone the way of George Lucas. He has crawled way too far up his own special effects ass. The film merely is a delivery system for whatever new effects program he commissioned.

 

In a week or two, he will have made the two highest grossing movies of all time. He's doing something right.

[Astrojanitor]

In a week or two, he will have made the two highest grossing movies of all time. He's doing something right.

 

Well, being popular and being good are two completely different things. Nickelback is the highest selling rock and roll band of the last ten years, doesn't mean they are doing anything right. Just means there are a lot of people with terrible taste out there.

[DC Tom]

There's a big difference between anti-American and historical. Dances with Wolves is NOT anti-American. It depicts the plight of the Native Americans and the suffering inflicted upon them during manisfestdestiny. But, rather than show that plight through purely Native American eyes -- thus giving an overwhelming majority of the audience no access point -- Michael Blake used an American hero as his entry point. Costner's war torn hero was not Anti-American. He was anti oppression (against slavery and the massacre of an entire indiginous people).

 

You can't white-wash history. It happened. And telling stories about it to keep the horrors (as well as the uplifting moments) fresh in people's mind isn't a bad thing. And certainly isn't Anti-American. It would be more Anti-American to pretend that those events never took place.

 

While I do like the movie, Dances With Wolves was about as historical as Howard the Duck. Just because it's set in a given historica time period and language and culture (and a brutally inaccurate portrayal of that culture it was, at that), doesn't mean it's even remotely accurate.

[CosmicBills]

While I do like the movie, Dances With Wolves was about as historical as Howard the Duck. Just because it's set in a given historica time period and language and culture (and a brutally inaccurate portrayal of that culture it was, at that), doesn't mean it's even remotely accurate.

My apologies if I said it was a historically accurate drama. Obviously, Dunbar was not based on a real person and I don't claim to know enough about the Sioux or their language (which I know was a big issue as far as accuracy) ... I just meant that the film portrays the era and the plight of the Native Americans more than getting it 100% accurate.

[Terry Tate]

Avatar plot revealed

 

Avatar plot revealed

[Astrojanitor]

Avatar plot revealed

 

Avatar plot revealed

 

Ha!

[John Adams]

Well, being popular and being good are two completely different things. Nickelback is the highest selling rock and roll band of the last ten years, doesn't mean they are doing anything right. Just means there are a lot of people with terrible taste out there.

 

But here's the thing: There's an art to writing popular things. You can hate Michael Jackson but the guy had a certain genius for music. And Stephen King has a certain genius for story-telling. And Cameron has a certain genius for movies. With 2 of his movies making 3 billion dollars and growing, some part of his genius should be hard for anyone to deny.

 

Throw stones at Titanic as a POS not worthy of its 2B revenues but you know what: A shitload of people saw that movie and liked it...even if it's chic to now say it is terrible.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

A shitload of people saw that movie and liked it...even if it's chic to now say it is terrible.

 

It was chic (and also correct) to say the same thing back when the movie was made.

[John Adams]

It was chic (and also correct) to say the same thing back when the movie was made.

 

What you and others may fail to "get" about movies that Cameron and Speilberg make is their ability to pique a sense of wonder. I love Tarantino movies. I love Scorsese movies. But they are in different genres. I can appreciate all 4 of those direcotrs.

 

It's fun to be in the "cool" club appreciating Cohn brothers and other black comedies and dramas--but it's also perfectly OK to step into a movie like ET and just enjoy it.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

It's fun to be in the "cool" club appreciating Cohn brothers and other black comedies and dramas--but it's also perfectly OK to step into a movie like ET and just enjoy it.

 

I don't argue that point at all. I love big-ticket blockbusters. But Titanic was an AWFUL movie.

[Booster4324]

My take on any movie is take what you want from it, if you cannot take enough, then it sucks. Politics be damned when I go to see a movie and if it is overly preachy I will enjoy other aspects.

[Astrojanitor]

What you and others may fail to "get" about movies that Cameron and Speilberg make is their ability to pique a sense of wonder. I love Tarantino movies. I love Scorsese movies. But they are in different genres. I can appreciate all 4 of those direcotrs.

 

It's fun to be in the "cool" club appreciating Cohn brothers and other black comedies and dramas--but it's also perfectly OK to step into a movie like ET and just enjoy it.

 

No argument here. But Transformers 2 making a billion dollars does not, in any way, mean that movie was anything less than a big dumb incoherent oddly racist piece of garbage. It's also chic to trash Titanic since now the special effects have worn off we can see it's an overlong series of people walking down hallways. three hours of walking down hallways.

 

Cameron is smart enough to blanket his shortcomings in revolutionary special effects. It makes seeing his films on the big screen a worthwhile investment....you will see something remarkable at a Cameron film. Although for my money both Cameron and Speilberg made exactly one good film each (Terminator and Duel, respectively). I find their films to be insufferable melodramas with explosions.

[billsfan89]

No argument here. But Transformers 2 making a billion dollars does not, in any way, mean that movie was anything less than a big dumb incoherent oddly racist piece of garbage. It's also chic to trash Titanic since now the special effects have worn off we can see it's an overlong series of people walking down hallways. three hours of walking down hallways.

 

Cameron is smart enough to blanket his shortcomings in revolutionary special effects. It makes seeing his films on the big screen a worthwhile investment....you will see something remarkable at a Cameron film. Although for my money both Cameron and Speilberg made exactly one good film each (Terminator and Duel, respectively). I find their films to be insufferable melodramas with explosions.

 

Terminator 2 was a great movie and for some reason the special effects don't really seem that dated to me as you said an oddity for a Cameron movie. BUT Terminator 1 was one of the best if not the best action/science fiction movie ever made. While the special effects are very dated the movie is just so intense and filled with action that isn't over the top but gets the message across very effectively and as you said by far Cameron's best movie.

 

From your posts in this thread you seem to know a lot about movies. I actually dread to ask you your thoughts on Kevin Smith's movies but I will do so anyway.