This message is in MIME format. Since your mail reader does not understand
this format, some or all of this message may not be legible.
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF48BE.D6B4A5D4
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Scottie:
Although a graphic artist by profession, he would say
that only in a properly written book could you hope
to convey 'the way it was'.
...
Film is a wonderful, exciting, moving medium. But 'reality'
it doesn't do.
I wonder if this is because film is an inherently more precise medium than
writing. An historical book leaves much of the work to the reader, forcing
him to project his own imaginings upon the narrative. Reading is really a
collaboration between author and reader, so it's no surprise that the reader
would find the results more true to his experience. An historical film
(especially one bent on realism like Saving Private Ryan) tends to make a
much less ambiguous statement about "the way things were". A strong
statement is bound to find harmony with some viewers and discord with
others. The recruiters for WWII rejected me (something about not being born
yet), which leaves me entirely out of the business of judging the film's
fidelity.
Scottie:
The opening sequence had been so grossly oversold
beforehand that, on the night, it seemed anticlimactic.
You should never let hype get between yourself and a film.
Scottie:
And the rest of the story seemed to me to be perfectly
straightforward Hollywood: the same old token group
of chaps, each representing one of the standard subtypes
- & the rest of us left to spend the next couple of hours
figuring which one is going for the chop now & which
one in the course of the next 'incident'. Guess the survivors
& win a small prize.
I have yet to see a film with the same visceral impact as SPR (the only
other film that comes to mind is Schindler's List). In fact, I have yet to
see a film, Hollywood or otherwise, that bears anything more than a
superficial resemblance to SPR.
And come on, you can turn any war film into a game of predicting who will
get it and who won't. In fact, you could do the same thing with an actual
war, and from accounts that I've read, this seems to have been a common
preoccupation among soldiers on the front. Certainly, you'd agree that one
of the distinguishing characteristics of real battle is that the
participants face the imminent possibility of sudden, unpredictable, violent
death. This particular critique seems more targeted at the inherent drama of
war, staged or real.
-Sean
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF48BE.D6B4A5D4
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
Scottie:
Although a graphic artist by =
profession, he would say
that only in a properly written =
book could you hope
to convey 'the way it =
was'.
...
Film is a wonderful, exciting, =
moving medium. But 'reality'
it doesn't do.
I wonder if this is because film is an inherently = more precise medium than writing. An historical book leaves much of the = work to the reader, forcing him to project his own imaginings upon the = narrative. Reading is really a collaboration between author and reader, = so it's no surprise that the reader would find the results more true to = his experience. An historical film (especially one bent on realism like = Saving Private Ryan) tends to make a much less ambiguous statement = about "the way things were". A strong statement is bound to = find harmony with some viewers and discord with others. The recruiters = for WWII rejected me (something about not being born yet), which leaves = me entirely out of the business of judging the film's fidelity. =
Scottie:
The opening sequence had been so =
grossly oversold
beforehand that, on the night, it =
seemed anticlimactic.
You should never let hype get between yourself and a = film.
Scottie:
And the rest of the story seemed =
to me to be perfectly
straightforward Hollywood: the =
same old token group
of chaps, each representing one =
of the standard subtypes
- & the rest of us left to =
spend the next couple of hours
figuring which one is going for =
the chop now & which
one in the course of the next =
'incident'. Guess the survivors
& win a small prize.
I have yet to see a film with the same visceral = impact as SPR (the only other film that comes to mind is Schindler's = List). In fact, I have yet to see a film, Hollywood or otherwise, that = bears anything more than a superficial resemblance to SPR.
And come on, you can turn any war film into a game of = predicting who will get it and who won't. In fact, you could do the = same thing with an actual war, and from accounts that I've read, this = seems to have been a common preoccupation among soldiers on the front. = Certainly, you'd agree that one of the distinguishing characteristics = of real battle is that the participants face the imminent possibility = of sudden, unpredictable, violent death. This particular critique seems = more targeted at the inherent drama of war, staged or real.
-Sean
------_=_NextPart_001_01BF48BE.D6B4A5D4--