The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
War! What is it Good For?
Everyone knows that war is bad. Except that is for the producers in Hollywood who continuously bring out war films to keep Petrol in their sports cars, but who can blame them audiences just lap it up. The voyeuristic mind of the audience to see the horrors of war, created mostly by people who have never experienced it, is mystifying. In the past war films had a purpose at least. During the Second World War feature production was controlled by the British government in order to boost the moral of the families of those at war. Films such as “In Which we Serve” along with the Pathe news reels shown in cinemas undeniably aided the war effort. Then there was of course Casablanca in 1942 which changed the way in which cinema narratives were constructed.
Then there was the multitude of ‘Nam films out in the 70’s and 80’s. But why were these so popular. They were about a decade late to be depicting current events. The main reason was because they were either great films such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). However, there were many films such as the Rambo Trilogy which attracted an audience through the use of graphic violence and patriotic flag waving.
Now in the nineties, we’ve had the morally righteous Speilberg, the travesty that was Pearl Harbour and the occasionally good film from directors such as Terence Mallick (The Thin Red Line). Pearl Harbour optimises what the genre has become, an excuse for Americans to wave flags and claim that they won every war that history has ever recorded. I liked Pearl Harbour, I thought that although it was pretentious, it was very well made rubbish with good CGI. It is worrying however that films such as U-571 take credit for some of Britain’s greatest achievements, its not as if the states don’t have anything to be proud of themselves.
With another set of war films on the Horizon, Black Hawk Down and Windtalkers the most eagerly anticipated, I only hope that these films shy away from the graphic depictions of violence and hark back to films such as Apocalypse Now. With Apocalypse Now Redux having just been released the genre standard bearer has reared its head and any new films will have a high standard to follow.
Let’s just hope that it’s not absolutely nothing.
Everyone knows that war is bad. Except that is for the producers in Hollywood who continuously bring out war films to keep Petrol in their sports cars, but who can blame them audiences just lap it up. The voyeuristic mind of the audience to see the horrors of war, created mostly by people who have never experienced it, is mystifying. In the past war films had a purpose at least. During the Second World War feature production was controlled by the British government in order to boost the moral of the families of those at war. Films such as “In Which we Serve” along with the Pathe news reels shown in cinemas undeniably aided the war effort. Then there was of course Casablanca in 1942 which changed the way in which cinema narratives were constructed.
Then there was the multitude of ‘Nam films out in the 70’s and 80’s. But why were these so popular. They were about a decade late to be depicting current events. The main reason was because they were either great films such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). However, there were many films such as the Rambo Trilogy which attracted an audience through the use of graphic violence and patriotic flag waving.
Now in the nineties, we’ve had the morally righteous Speilberg, the travesty that was Pearl Harbour and the occasionally good film from directors such as Terence Mallick (The Thin Red Line). Pearl Harbour optimises what the genre has become, an excuse for Americans to wave flags and claim that they won every war that history has ever recorded. I liked Pearl Harbour, I thought that although it was pretentious, it was very well made rubbish with good CGI. It is worrying however that films such as U-571 take credit for some of Britain’s greatest achievements, its not as if the states don’t have anything to be proud of themselves.
With another set of war films on the Horizon, Black Hawk Down and Windtalkers the most eagerly anticipated, I only hope that these films shy away from the graphic depictions of violence and hark back to films such as Apocalypse Now. With Apocalypse Now Redux having just been released the genre standard bearer has reared its head and any new films will have a high standard to follow.
Let’s just hope that it’s not absolutely nothing.
Damn good song. War is awful, but necessary.
I think its actually essential that todays war films are violent. From watching the news and all the bomb camera footage its easy to forget that people are really being killed when those bombs hit. I think you'll find Black Hawk Down pretty graphic - certainly the book is, with one part narrating how an unlucky ranger had an unexploded RPG impale him... Modern war isn't always at cruis missile length and it is important that that is not forgotten.
Films like U571 do not take away real achievements...because they are films, i.e. not real. Black Hawk Down makes it clear that the story is true but U571 makes no kind of claim. The DVD version even includes the real story of capturing enigma. Films like Saving PrivateRyan and The Thin Red Line do not just show the victories of war but also the dark side e.g. allied troops killing surrendering enemies.
Through all the violence the viewer is given the message that war is not nice, nor just another item on the news. Its real, people die and innocents are killed, but there is always a reason for war as well. Vietnam films generally miss the point as they are all made around the 70s-80s, it cna be argued that the US did not lose that war. The films all suggest it in various ways.
Films like U571 do not take away real achievements...because they are films, i.e. not real. Black Hawk Down makes it clear that the story is true but U571 makes no kind of claim. The DVD version even includes the real story of capturing enigma. Films like Saving PrivateRyan and The Thin Red Line do not just show the victories of war but also the dark side e.g. allied troops killing surrendering enemies.
Through all the violence the viewer is given the message that war is not nice, nor just another item on the news. Its real, people die and innocents are killed, but there is always a reason for war as well. Vietnam films generally miss the point as they are all made around the 70s-80s, it cna be argued that the US did not lose that war. The films all suggest it in various ways.
War! What is it Good For?
Everyone knows that war is bad. Except that is for the producers in Hollywood who continuously bring out war films to keep Petrol in their sports cars, but who can blame them audiences just lap it up. The voyeuristic mind of the audience to see the horrors of war, created mostly by people who have never experienced it, is mystifying. In the past war films had a purpose at least. During the Second World War feature production was controlled by the British government in order to boost the moral of the families of those at war. Films such as “In Which we Serve” along with the Pathe news reels shown in cinemas undeniably aided the war effort. Then there was of course Casablanca in 1942 which changed the way in which cinema narratives were constructed.
Then there was the multitude of ‘Nam films out in the 70’s and 80’s. But why were these so popular. They were about a decade late to be depicting current events. The main reason was because they were either great films such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). However, there were many films such as the Rambo Trilogy which attracted an audience through the use of graphic violence and patriotic flag waving.
Now in the nineties, we’ve had the morally righteous Speilberg, the travesty that was Pearl Harbour and the occasionally good film from directors such as Terence Mallick (The Thin Red Line). Pearl Harbour optimises what the genre has become, an excuse for Americans to wave flags and claim that they won every war that history has ever recorded. I liked Pearl Harbour, I thought that although it was pretentious, it was very well made rubbish with good CGI. It is worrying however that films such as U-571 take credit for some of Britain’s greatest achievements, its not as if the states don’t have anything to be proud of themselves.
With another set of war films on the Horizon, Black Hawk Down and Windtalkers the most eagerly anticipated, I only hope that these films shy away from the graphic depictions of violence and hark back to films such as Apocalypse Now. With Apocalypse Now Redux having just been released the genre standard bearer has reared its head and any new films will have a high standard to follow.
Let’s just hope that it’s not absolutely nothing.
Everyone knows that war is bad. Except that is for the producers in Hollywood who continuously bring out war films to keep Petrol in their sports cars, but who can blame them audiences just lap it up. The voyeuristic mind of the audience to see the horrors of war, created mostly by people who have never experienced it, is mystifying. In the past war films had a purpose at least. During the Second World War feature production was controlled by the British government in order to boost the moral of the families of those at war. Films such as “In Which we Serve” along with the Pathe news reels shown in cinemas undeniably aided the war effort. Then there was of course Casablanca in 1942 which changed the way in which cinema narratives were constructed.
Then there was the multitude of ‘Nam films out in the 70’s and 80’s. But why were these so popular. They were about a decade late to be depicting current events. The main reason was because they were either great films such as Apocalypse Now (1979), Platoon (1986) and Full Metal Jacket (1987). However, there were many films such as the Rambo Trilogy which attracted an audience through the use of graphic violence and patriotic flag waving.
Now in the nineties, we’ve had the morally righteous Speilberg, the travesty that was Pearl Harbour and the occasionally good film from directors such as Terence Mallick (The Thin Red Line). Pearl Harbour optimises what the genre has become, an excuse for Americans to wave flags and claim that they won every war that history has ever recorded. I liked Pearl Harbour, I thought that although it was pretentious, it was very well made rubbish with good CGI. It is worrying however that films such as U-571 take credit for some of Britain’s greatest achievements, its not as if the states don’t have anything to be proud of themselves.
With another set of war films on the Horizon, Black Hawk Down and Windtalkers the most eagerly anticipated, I only hope that these films shy away from the graphic depictions of violence and hark back to films such as Apocalypse Now. With Apocalypse Now Redux having just been released the genre standard bearer has reared its head and any new films will have a high standard to follow.
Let’s just hope that it’s not absolutely nothing.