Cool News
Terrence Malick' Benecio Del Toro' Pinch Me... I
Hi, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab...
It’s just too good to be true.
The idea that Terrence Malick is gearing up to make another movie somewhere on this planet... the idea that he might make another movie... that’s insanely exciting to me. He’s one of the few guys out there with, in my opinion, a flawless filmography. Of course, he’s only made three films, so...
Anyway, here’s the original story as it was forwarded to me by many of you today:
Hey Harry, just a huge bit of news on the masterful and very reclusive Terrence Malick for the Ain't it Cool circuit, fresh from The Hollywood Reporter:
"Malick poised to direct 'Che'
Reclusive filmmaker Terrence Malick may be starting to pick up the pace. Although 20 years passed between his 1978 film "Days of Heaven" and 1998's "The Thin Red Line," he's already contemplating another stint in the director's chair. The helmer is attached to direct Benicio Del Toro in "Che," an epic about the life and death of Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara that Laura Bickford is producing. Steven Soderbergh was originally considering helming the project but now is likely to be involved in a producing capacity. "Che" is not yet set up at a studio, but if Soderbergh continues his involvement, one likely possibility is that Warner Bros. Pictures might step in. The studio houses Section Eight, the production company headed by Soderbergh and partner George Clooney. At this point, however, neither Warners nor Section Eight is part of the picture. Malick is repped by WMA. (Zorianna Kit)"
CLICK HERE TO READ THE STORY!!
I can't help but think there will be a few script revisions, as Malick's narrative is a distinct one - unless the script is already to his fitting. The gap between his first two masterpieces, Badlands and Days of Heaven, was six years - followed by the twenty year gap until the awe-inspiring The Thin Red Line. It seems like, if Che is released in 2004, a six year gap will be between his third and fourth films - so it looks like 2024 is the date set for his fifth project! So, grasp onto Malick while we have him!
In related news: I'll probably end up hibernating until Che is released.
Cheers!
-JohnEIt’s ripe and robust source material and subject matter, and I am going to start lighting votive candles to pray for this to happen.
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
HA. Suckers
-
"Nyah Nyah. My filmograhy kicks Malick's ass."
Charles Laughton -
Terrance can wait another twenty years between films for all I care.
-
Was so awful it was laughable. The Japanese sat around and cried as we giant Americans invaded? Thats the height of revisionist garbage. How come no one ever did a world war II film about that includes the atrocities the Japanese committed against the Chinese which were equal if not greater than what was done to the Jews? But we should feel bad for the poor proud race we humiliated. So fucking stupid and boring.
-
It captured the essence of command in both successful and unsuccessful leaders. The movie was visually stunning, delicately acted, and wonderfully shot. I can't think of a single bad thing about The Thin Red Line.
-
"Thats the height of revisionist garbage." Ummm, what? So its inconcievable that these human beings cried when they knew they were going to die? What the fuck do you mean, revisionist? Are you aware that the Japanese were human too? Just like you? Yes their nation perpetrated atrocities - did that make every one of them guilty? Not to be pitied? Please. Get down off your gung-ho Yank pedestal. Its embarassing and sickening enough to see your meathead president trying to explain his way out of the fucking fiasco that is Iraq. You want to talk about atrocity? Yours is the ONLY COUNTRY IN HISTORY TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB. What do reckon - was it OK for Japanese people to cry when they found out 100's of THOUSANDS of their people were killed in an instant at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? THINK before you open your mouth.
-
It was inaccurate. It was unrealistic. It was boring as hell. It lacked any real focus and even for an ensemble piece seemed to have little direction. The Thin Red Line was mastubatory and decadent. The biggests in of all were the seemingly endless stream of star cameos. What a crapfest.
-
First of all - read my previous post. Second of all, I'm going to introduce you to a little thing we grown-ups called 'OPINION'.
"It was unrealistic." IN YOUR OPINION. "It was boring as hell." IN YOUR OPINION. "It lacked any real focus and even for an ensemble piece seemed to have little direction." IN YOUR OPINION. "The Thin Red Line was mastubatory and decadent. The biggests in of all were the seemingly endless stream of star cameos. What a crapfest." IN YOUR OPINION. Are you getting me? So, in future, you might put 'I think....' or 'In my opinion....' You with me? Watch - I'm going to do it now.............. IN MY OPINION, The Thin Red Line was a masterpiece - a visually stunning, beautifully crafted masterpiece - a thing of poignance and beauty - a film which, unlike the vast majority of its genre, refuses to pander to the mindlessly Jingoistic flag-waving propoganda most American war films perpetuate. In my opinion, of course.
-
The Thin Red Line was a great allegory, a stunning tour de' force of cinematography and an abhorrently bad MOVIE. It was, overall, an incoherenet lacing together of moments from The Discovery Channel (birds flapping in the mud, sunlight through the trees), some cheasy romance novel (oversaturated flashbacks of JC's girlfriend), and moments of graphic violence.
Sure, that might just capture the essence of war, but the essence of war does not a movie make.
Hell, even Lynch's stuff had more coherence than The Thin Red Line.
Wyll- -
Heh sundown bet you're a Private Ryan fan, now there's a 'realistic' and 'accurate' film eh,....Thin Red Line 'Boring'? - but there were plenty of explosions for you though! TWAT. The point about the Japanese in Thin Red Line was that they were DYING at the time, read a bit about how they actually survived on those islands, that's why they were all fucked up! Anyway the film was MUCH more about philosophy than command. That said the action sequences, man the first time I saw the attack on the bunker scene, that was a rush, quite terrifying as well.
Bad things about the film: George Fucking Clooney! VHS box: his name appears before Malick's FFS. -
The Japanese commited atrocities at Nanking that recurred all over their conquered lands that made the Nazi observers sick. And the worst part is: the Japanese still haven't been held accountable and even deny that it occurred. The Thin Red Line attempted to portray the soldiers of World War II as hippies in a Vietnam-like scenario, who could care less about the fact that their way of life was threatened by cold-blooded killers bent on ruling the world.
-
Sorry bout that, sundown
-
""Thats the height of revisionist garbage." Ummm, what? So its inconcievable that these human beings cried when they knew they were going to die? What the fuck do you mean, revisionist? Are you aware that the Japanese were human too? Just like you?" No shit sherlock. I didn't know that. The fact remains that hardened soldiers sitting around crying while the giant Americans trounced around them was unrealistic AND stupid. The Japanese were awesome fighters. Even their Japanese American counterparts were among the most heavily decorated. Anyone not talking out of their ass would know that they practically INVENTED guerilla warfare and inflicted mass casualties even with small amounts of troops. The Japanese would
rather die than surrender. This is demonstrated by the battle of
Saipan. At this battle over half of the population of Saipan walked
off a cliff instead of surrendering to the United States. They would NEVER EVER FUCKING CRY!!!!!!!!!!!! Not even the civilians. They would die before showing such dishonor!
"Yes their nation perpetrated atrocities - did that make every one of them guilty? Not to be pitied?" to " Yours is the ONLY COUNTRY IN HISTORY TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB. What do reckon - was it OK for Japanese people to cry when they found out 100's of THOUSANDS of their people were killed in an instant at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? THINK before you open your mouth." Explain away their atrocities in one breath and bring up one you consider our in the next breath. First go here http://histclo.hispeed.com/essay/war/ww2/after/w2ja-wc.html then read up on how many would have died in their suicidal fights against us. Or did Kamikazees not exist. Maybe you should learn from more than TV.
"Please. Get down off your gung-ho Yank pedestal. Its embarassing and sickening enough to see your meathead president trying to explain his way out of the fucking fiasco that is Iraq. You want to talk about atrocity? " What the FUCK are you talking about. Go bate someone else you stupid troll. I love how you change the subject with ease. You are so full of shit. Iconoclast prick. Anyone who disagrees with you is a "mouthbreather". Read this "Killing of Chinese civilians was routien. Often they occurred after taking a city or as reprisals for gureilla activity. Japanese soldiers as a reward for taking a cHinese town were normally given 3 days to do as they please, including rape and pillage. The most notorious incident was the Rape of Nanking (1937-38). Another major incident was wide-scale killings after the Doolittle Raid (1942). There is a long list of other terrible incidents. The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal and Chinese war historians estimate that the Japanese killed outright or were indirectly responsible for 10-30 million deaths in China--mostly innocent civilians. Some even belive the total was higher. These deaths resulted from massacre by the Jpanese army, bombing of civilian populations, mistreatment of slave labor, starvation and germ and chemical warfare. The single most horendous incident was the Rape of Nanking where close to 0.3 million Chinese were killed. [Chang] Many other Chinese cities suffered greviously. "
-
Jul 18, 2003 10:23:31 AM CDT
Terrence Malick spent 20 years smoking weed, reading Rousseau an
by heywood jablomie
Granted, Gibson was talking about Wenders' MILLION DOLLAR HOTEL, but the point stands. Film geeks who can't see the difference between BADLANDS and DAYS OF HEAVEN (masterpieces) and THIN RED LINE (doobie-smokin' high-priced train wreck) are just kidding themselves...like the suckers who rank the utterly useless GANGS OF NEW YORK on the top shelf with Scorsese's Finest.
-
I'd love Malick to film Catcher in the Rye...
-
what if he made those (only merely good)movies two years apart like normal directors who arent full of themselves?...would he still have the same reputation and high regard...i think not my friends
-
I own Badlands (1998 WB re-ssiue), Days of Heaven (Pioneer AC-3 edition) and The Thin Red Line (ultra-rare, out of print in limited pressing) on laserdiscs. Terrence never cease to amaze me whenever I watch any of the movies above. He's incredibly gifted with a Western (Greek, perhaps?) philosopher's point of view, not to mention his ability to convey haunting scenes and poetic tones in abstract narration. Terrence is one of the best filmmakers living out there alongside Steven Spielberg, Quentin Tarantino and many foreign directors. Enough praise. Whatever happened that proposed project of Catcher in the Rye? I for one am eagerly anticipating the fourth film of Terrence Malick, just as I'm anticipating another long-awaited film from Tarantino and James Cameron. Malick won't disappoint; he's too good to direct a bad movie.
-
Guess what its not an opinion its a fact. Same goes for Thin Red Line. BORING as hell. Action and violence mean nothing if you can' care about anyone involved. I've had toast more compelling. I love the way your kind try to paint people with different opinions as inferior. "There were plenty of explosions for you". Screw you. Iconoclast scum. Saving Private Ryan was decent. The last decent film Speilberg made. At least I gave a crap about the film. And Scyth is dead on. Vietnam it made sense to do Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket. In WWII it makes no sense. If you yearn so hard to see a WWII film with hippy's and a subversive message see Kelleys Heroes. At least its not garbage. Granted it was nicely shot garbage but the story had NOTHING. And without that, its just a husk.
-
Can't wait to see a movie about Che, hope they'll nail it.
Oh, by the way, Che Guevara was Argentinian, not Cuban. -
jesus, the last half-hour of Private Ryan was a remake of the last half hour of Kelly's Heroes. And Oddball was much better than Tom Wanks.
-
you can admire malick for being unique and a fascinating example of a pre-heaven's gate auteur throwback whose reputation is so considerable, he can call his own shots and have john savage "rail against war" in lieu of actual scripting (see nick nolte's interviews during the thetarical release for _the small red one_). that doesn't mean any serious cineaste (fd resurrected, this means you) should stomach the wholesale garbage malick spent a lot of money crafting into possibly the most unwatchable film of the 90's. meaning, it has a lot of competition and it STILL pulls ahead. the olympian pretension of the endless, mercilessly and inadvertantly funny voiceovers and the, uh, inscrutable pacing makes mincemeat out of some marvelously lived-in performances from sean penn, nolte, elias koteas, adrian brody (and we all know how HE feels about this, uh, breakout role of his...). _days of heaven_, though mostly successful, suggested malick's inclination towards the strenuously arty, over actual art, as with the still-magnificent _badlands_. _the thin bull shit_ is the result of that inclination gestated over the course of two decades. don't believe the hype, terry, especially your own!!! this che project COULD be remarkable, but that may only occur on the occasion of benecio pulling terrence's head out of his ass...now, THAT i'd pay money to see.
-
Jul 18, 2003 10:45:08 AM CDT
How bout you get off your pedestal and think things through for
by scythe1138
Yeah we were the only ones to ever use an atomic device against our enemy, but then again we were the only ones that HAD TO!!! There would be far less of you bed-wetting Socialist morons if more people would think things through. Guess what, if I could go back in time and somehow had the power to prevent those bombs from dropping, I'd try and get the best view possible and remember Pearl Harbor and Nanking. As an American, I understand that the decision to use the bombs saved thousands of American lives. I'm sure you'd probably be overjoyed with less "yanks" in the world, but then again you'd probably be in a fucking gulag breaking rocks. When the U.S.A. is all that stands between you and annihilation, I'm sure we'll be in your thoughts.
-
Has anyone seen that legendary film from the 1960's with Sharif as Che and Jack Palance as Fidel Castro? I've only heard the worst things about it, and curiously enough, it was never released to video or DVD...
-
I'm in no way defending the Japanese and the atrocities they committed in the War. I'm merely saying you commited depraved acts yourselves. And are committing them in the Middle East as we speak. As for your 'Japanese soldiers would never cry, man!!' rant - grow up. Were you there? Can you unequivocally say not a single one ever cried while a gun was being pointed at their face? No? Then why come out with that? As for me changing the subject - your mention of revisionism got my hackles up - the DAILY revision of the situation in Iraq, the back-tracking, the lying, the monosyllabic grunts from your Chimp President about 'Bad People' - it all has me is such a state of disbelief and disgust that I fly off the handle fairly easily. Apologies for probably being too in your face.
-
Here's LA Weekly article in defense of The Thin Red Line from F.X Feeney at http://www.laweekly.com/ink/99/08/film-feeney.php Only read if you're literate and have good attention span to comprehend Feeney's points. Take a look at Internet movie database's user comments at http://us.imdb.com/Title?0120863 - both positive and outright negative. I consider Thin Red Line as polarizing as just about any Lars Von Trier & Stanley Kubrick movie and Spielberg's A.I./Minority Report. I didn't like Eyes Wide Shut, thought it was pretentious, pointless and boring and is one of Kubrick's lesser films in his filmography, in my opinion. Strangely, I didn't think the same on A.I. and The Thin Red Line. It depends on the level of intelligence, familiarity with the subject and director's intent and one's life perspective in INTERPRETING the movie. If you can't take up the challenge of watching ther movie and interpret for yourself, then Scary Movie sequels, Jerry Bruckheimer films and MTV-edited Hollywood movies for you. There is a DIFFERENCE between commerce and art. Commerce and art rarely mix, as with Kubrick and Milos Forman movies, but Spielberg does it successfully from time to time. This might include Quentin Tarantino, despite his saying that he makes movies for HIMSELF and for the movie geeks. I consider The Blair Witch Project stupid, boring and pointless garbage critically acclaimed by naive and moronic movie critics - and it's one of the worst movies I've ever seen. That's my opinion, of course.
-
Is it Malicks job to show the 1 Japanese soldier that cried or the VAST majority of them that (in their minds) heroically fought to their death? Its bullshit. They were defending their homes in their minds. They were soldiers. They wouldn't sit around crying. This was a movie about history NOT fantasy and thats why he is held to this standard. Its Inaccurate and A WRONG representation of the truth. But considering your constant deflections regarding Iraw I doubt you would see the truth until the mushroom cloud rose up over your house. I'm done with you, pathetic slob.
-
Great. Just what we need. A whitewashing, fawning tribute to one of the 20th century's great thugs.
-
what you fail to realize is that humans are basically animals with a thin veneer of civilization and a tendency towards malignancy. War tends to rub the veneer off. as does the occasional AICN TB.
-
Jul 18, 2003 11:18:03 AM CDT
My thoughts on Thin Red Line (if anyone gives a rats ass)
by nflrefugee
There are moments of sheer brilliance in this film. It's hard to keep your eyes off the screen. I found it compelling and one of the most jaw-dropping, beautiful films ever made. That being said, the parts of the film are great but the film as a whole doesn't work. You're almost better off watching it 15 minute intervals then sitting down and watching it from begining to end. It's like a collection of poetry from different poets. You don't necessarily read the collection from begining to end, you read the individual poems, let them sink in and if you want more you read more. Reading a collection of poetry from begining to end, like a novel, doesn't make sense. This kind of flies in the face of how we view films, from begining to end, but thats how I see the film. BTW don't hold you're breathe for another Malick film, it's not a sound financial investment. As much as I despise him, we need Bert Schneider to produce this film.
-
You got me. That was inspired. Your argument is wandering all over the ice-rink, my friend. Give it up. Hush now. First you imply they don't deserve sympathy because of their atrocities. You send me to websites detailing their depraved acts. You are then evidently taken over by some manner of body-snatcher, who starts harping on about what amazing warriors they, what proud people they are, how they would never cry. Make up your fucking mind. As regards Iraq, sundown - yes, I am deflecting this talkback onto the subject. I'm interested in YOUR view of the truth. Apparently I'm not aware of it. Do tell.
-
Sundown -
Take a look at Richard B. Frank's "Guadalcanal: The Definitive Account of the Landmark Battle" to get a real insight into the events that Malick dramatizes in the battle sequences of "The Thin Red Line," and that James Jones wrote about in his original novel-- based on his own experience on Guadalcanal. By the time Jones arrived (with the Army units that moved in after the initial and decisive Marine actions in defense of Henderson Field)the Japanese had been starving for four months (they came to call Guadalcanal "Starvation Island"), were suffering under near-constant air attack, and knew they had no hope of getting out alive - the commanders at Rabaul and Truk were no longer even bothering to try to support them. The few prisoners the Army managed to take were just as Malick depicts them - shattered, broken men, on the verge of death from starvation and disease. Most of the healthier ones fought to the death... but there weren't many of them left at that point, either. -
Jul 18, 2003 11:47:51 AM CDT
"yes, I am deflecting this talkback onto the subject. I'm intere
by sundown
Someone needs to get laid.
-
Suddenly every soldier was a poet and had an internal serenity in the heat of battle. Yeah, fucking right.
-
As another poster mentioned, "Thin Red Line" was a beautifully shot, BAD movie. Really, really bad. I guess many film critics (looking at you Ebert) felt compelled to give it glowing reviews because the man had done such brilliant work in the past. But the movie was horrible (Yes, I know I'm repeating myself here). I was actively hating Malick by the end of this motion picture version of the Chinese water torture. I was so happy when I THOUGHT the movie was gonna end, and got angry when it dragged on for another 30 - 40 minutres.
-
Jul 18, 2003 1:30:37 PM CDT
Happy Hamster, I wouldn't exactly call Ebert's review glowing, b
by nflrefugee
His review read as though he hated the film but he felt compelled to give it three stars, based on the fact that Malick has done good work in the past. If it wasn't for the name Terrence Malick he would have given it two stars. Maybe he didn't want to give it less than three stars because it may discourage Malick from working more. I don't know. I wouldn't have seen the movie based on the merits of Ebert's review.
-
No human is worthy of worship, nor is consumption something worth bragging about, as in radical "ultra-rare" discs or whatever. Just a thought. Also, not enjoying Thin Red Line doesn't make sewer chowder by the likes of Bruckheimer more palatable. It would be fun if things worked that way, but, sadly, they don't. What comparison there is to be found between TRL and BWP would be news to me, too. Maybe the fact that Malick couldn't produce something like BWP on the budget Myrick and Sanchez had or with the same time constraints? I'm sure he wouldn't want to, anyway, so what's the point again?
-
...to quote Peter O'Toole from Lawrence of Arabia. You begin you're inane arguement by bashing Terrence Malick's masterful film The Thin Red Line. Fine, fair enough, you don't like the picture very much. You seem utterly baffled by someone referring to it as a "revisionist" war film. Now what that talker meant by revisionist is that it's a film that has toyed with the conventions of the war film. For example, cliches such as an eclectic group of soldiers, the completely evil enemy, the massive ending battle, and even the standard issue main protagonist as our guide through the film are completely ignored. Malick ignored virtually all the standard conventions of the American war film. Thus the talkbacker rightfully stated that it's a revisionist war film. A good example of another revisionist genre film is John Ford's The Searchers. It turned the Western genre on it's head in many ways. Now to pull a complete 180 like you did, you move from trashing Malick's film to an all out assault on Americans. Why do this? How does this aide your arguement? Why go to an American website if you're so frustrated with yanks? You go from attempting to explain why you despise a movie to silly name calling culminating in the classic anti-American line, "You're the only country to use an atomic bomb!" I can't tell you how many times I've heard non-Americans echo that dubious line. It can of course be argued that it was unnecessary to drop two bombs since the first one was horrific enough, however, it was a different era. Most people forget that the world had been devastated by war since 1939. The Japanese fought ferociously and there's no reason to believe they would've simply laid down their arms had the Americans stormed ashore in 1945. In fact, to believe that they would've simply surrendered upon the arrival of American forces on their HOMELAND is rather silly. Consider how hard the Japanese fought for islands that weren't even inhabited by their own people. Do you think they would've just given up when American troops attacked Toyko or Kyoto no matter how poor their resources were? The Emperor called for the "honorable death of the hundred million" if the Americans invaded. Many today scoff at the notion of the Japanese fighting to the death or committing mass suicide. But consider this, the great Japanese filmmaker Akira Kurosawa, who was by NO means a militant Japanese, admitted in his superb autobiography that he probably would've done what the Emperor had instructed. Now if the director of Ikiru, Red Beard, and Madadayo was willing to lay down his life if the Americans invaded, what makes you think every other Japanese wouldn't have done so? Splinter, you're arguement is as flawed as Toshiro Mifune's character in Throne of Blood.
-
What the fuck are you talking about? I absolutely love The Thin Red Line. I stated that pretty clearly in one of my posts. If you'll allow me to quote myself - "The Thin Red Line was a masterpiece - a visually stunning, beautifully crafted masterpiece - a thing of poignance and beauty - a film which, unlike the vast majority of its genre, refuses to pander to the mindlessly Jingoistic flag-waving propoganda most American war films perpetuate. In my opinion, of course. " As regards your interpretation of what sundown meant by 'revisionist', you're talking out of your ass. That's not what he meant. What I objected to in the first place is him questioning the realism of showing Japanese soldiers crying at their impending deaths, like they didn't deserve our sympathy. Thats what he meant be revisionism. He has since changed his argument a number of times. Ignorant? How, exactly? Oh, and Roger, the reason you've heard the Atom Bomb comment so many times is because - wait for it, this'll surpise you - it was a fucking despicable abomination. You will ALWAYS hear that comment. Always. And deservedly so. As an afterthought, I don't hate Americans. I hate your sick, depraved administration, and what its doing in the world at the moment. I have a number of close American friends, and work alongside them every day. They happening to be the discerning, well-read type though - the type who read news that isn't vetted, filtered and censored, the type who are deeply ashamed of Bush.
-
I mistakenly thought you despised the Thin Red Line. I read the posts too quickly and the talkbacker language of colorful metaphors tends to blend together. Sorry, you liked it. I'm glad. The rest of my arguement, however, stands firm. Good day.
-
Jul 18, 2003 3:04:25 PM CDT
Che is a murderer and I hope this movie depicts his true nature
by hulkdog
I'm afraid it is too much against the advertising orthodoxy of our age, namely that Guevara was fundamentally a good, generous man who makes a fine poster.
Inside every rebel, there's a tyrant trying to get out: of no one is this more true than Che Guevara. He was the Ayatollah Khomeini of the Cuban Revolution, an ascetic who turned his own taste for renunciation into a moral imperative for others. A world ruled by Guevara would have been about as much fun as Calvin's Geneva.
It is typical of the fathomless self-indulgence and frivolity of pampered Western youth that they should have turned this self-righteous revolutionary prig into a pop icon, just because he wore a beret, failed to wash regularly, was careless in his dress, and was, from certain angles, highly photogenic. Of his horrible doctrines they knew and cared nothing.
As far as they were concerned, any young man who brought down a government by force in the name of justice must be a hero.
To be fair to Guevara, it was not his fault that he was so misunderstood by students in the West. He disdained to conceal either his thoughts or his actions. But despite his deep, almost elephantine earnestness, he also fully partook of the intellectual and moral frivolity of his Western admirers. Both of the present biographers claim that he had an insatiable intellectual curiosity, but there is no evidence that he ever once deigned to think about, let alone investigate, the causes of the heinous crimes of Stalin and Mao; nor did he ever pause to wonder about the source of the strength -- economic, cultural, and military -- of the United States. As a young man, he came to believe that exploitation was the fount of American and European wealth, and he held fast to that view to the very end. Only by adhering to this idiotic doctrine could he accord himself a providential role in history. Otherwise, he would have had to content himself with mundane medical practice, for which he was not at all suited.
Guevara's second wife, Aleida March, was a member of the upper middle classes; He had many illegitimate children. Each of Guevara's parents came from a relatively impoverished branch of an oligarchic Argentine family, but Guevara never knew actual poverty, and he had the fundamental self-assurance of those who are born into an elite. He developed severe asthma very early on, which had two consequences: first, it assured him of the deep love and anxious concern of his mother, who was by far the most important woman in his life; and second, it gave him the determination to overcome difficulties placed in his path. Despite his asthma, and against the odds, he became a sportsman as a youth; he never gave in to his physical limitations.
For the rest of his life, he was notably un-self-critical. He accepted his mother's estimate of his value; and he believed that what he did was right because it was he who did it. To the end of his days, he grossly overestimated the importance of his own willpower in shaping the world around him. His grandiosity and vanity destroyed him -- and many others also.
Guevara's self-importance developed early. During his youthful wanderings around Latin America, he had no compunction about swindling people (not necessarily rich) who crossed his path when he was hard up. He saw his dishonesty as an escapade, not a moral failing, because it was he who was being dishonest; later, his excessive punctiliousness about money -- in which there was a marked element of moral and intellectual snobbery -- became the standard by which he judged others. In short, he was always his own exemplar.
To call him second-rate as a thinker would be far too generous. His fundamental economic idea -- that all hope of personal gain should be removed from economic life -- is unoriginal, stupid, and evil in equal measure. The idea is just excusable in an adolescent; but in a grown man it is quite unpardonable. And only a moral monster would be prepared to kill in pursuit of such an ideal.
Guevara was such a monster; he was far too egotistical to change his fantasies in the light of experience once he had formed them. He dreamed of creating the New Man who, of course, would be the willing pupil of his own tuition -- all previous men, from the inventor of the wheel to Shakespeare, Newton, and Mozart, failing to come up to his exacting mark.
During the Cuban missile crisis Guevara was in favor of a nuclear war, which would have resulted in the deaths of tens of millions of Americans and the total eradication of the Cuban population. He believed that this was desirable because he also believed that a better world could have been built on, in, and presumably of the ashes. He felt not the slightest qualm in speaking on behalf of the millions of Cubans who would be thus immolated; not so much as a millisecond of doubt entered his allegedly capacious mind. What he said went for untold millions at a time.
It is clear, then, that Guevara was of the same mindset as Pol Pot. If he ended up killing far fewer innocent people than the Cambodian, it was not for lack of effort on his part. After all, he reveled in the Indochina war and would have loved to see two, three, many Cambodias around the world. The difference between him and Pol Pot was that he never studied in Paris.
Whatever his personal charms, a man who could seriously advocate the death of an entire population (being almost in a position to bring it about) is clearly unspeakably vile. Guevara adopted a violently anti-American and pro-Soviet stance without knowing anything about the history, economy, general living conditions, or culture of either country. If Guevara later became disillusioned with the Soviet Union, it was because it ceased being radical enough: Great Leaps Forward and Cultural Revolutions, with millions of deaths of the unrighteous, are what he craved.
I wonder about the young university students who marched off not merely to be massacred, but to massacre also. For it was Guevara's opinion (actual quote) that ``unbending hatred for the enemy, which pushes a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him into an effective, violent, selective, and cold-blooded killing machine,'' was desirable; indeed it was a precondition of a better world.
When the history of the twentieth century is written, Guevaraphilia among the educated middle classes of the richest, freest countries that have ever existed will seem a strange phenomenon indeed, and one not at all flattering to the human race. How could libertarians (or libertines) see in Guevara anything other than a ruthless puritanical dictator? Guevara was one of the most ruthless, though ultimately unsuccessful, opponents of freedom of our time.
-
Here's a question that your posts have made me ponder. If the US hadn't dropped the Atomic Bombs, what do you think would have happened? I am inclined to believe that the Japanese would fight furociously in a homeland invasion as do the majority of my countrymen. How many more Japanese, not just Americans mind you, would have died in such a situation. What would you have done instead? What is the clearer better option? Should we have just given up? And is it more humane to kill more people but without the aid of nuclear technology?
-
First off, I'd like to point out that Che was not Cuban. He was Argentinian. Calling him a Cuban Revolutionary, while understandable, is a bit misdirecting. Second, I read through some of the battle between Splinter and Sundown and all the political stuff you all went on about. You are all right and you are all wrong. Give it up. It's a movie. You either liked it or you didn't. Why fight about it? Actually, fighting about the movie would at least be interesting. But you are all arguing about history and politics. Splinter, I see all your points, but the fact is, you did turn your argument into an anti-American tirade. I'm not saying you said anything that was wrong, but what the hell does Iraq have to with movies? What does the current President have to do with WWII? Nothing. By the way, there is really never a need to use things like "I think," or "in my Opinion," when the statement is obviously subjective. That's just redundant. OK, I've said my piece. Damn, not having a job is really beginning to take it's toll on me. I never post on these things.
-
HAHAHAHA. It's so sad, it borders on pathetic. Then again, Splinter jumped that line long ago. So we "Amerrycans" and our "evil administration" are so wicked? We "dropped the bomb" and that's sooooo bad? Never mind the hundreds of studies that proved it saved millions of Americans and Japanese lives fromt he ensuing invasion. Never mind that the Japanese you hail as innocent saints killed 30 MILLION CHINESE to the 300,000 we killed in the bomb. (Also the British killed more Germans in Dresdens firestorm but shhhhh) So tell me, where do you hail from? What political leader do you worship, who is so righteous? Why do you talk about 'opinions' one minute and then ram your faux politics down everyones throats like it's gospel? People like you make me sick. You run around preaching black and white while you leave the gray to people with real morals who have to make real decisions. You remind me of a young PM Chamberlain proclaiming "peace in our time." Keep preaching, all you do is look more the fool. And my arguments HARDLY swayed from topic to topic. I actually FOCUSED the argument amidst your mad, infantile, anti-American bating rants. Sorry if it frustrated you that I didn't take your poorly laid bate. I wish I had the time to give you the intellectual stimulation you so obviously desire and beg for but I think you are best suited to issues more in your range...like Sesame Street and cartoons.
-
Splinter, from what I recall he said "revisionist garbage." I saw that in your post. I assumed he was referring to genre film revisionism. How silly of me that a talkbacker would actually be writing about something intellectually. But, in any event, now you know what someone means when they refer to a film as being revisionist. Oh, I'd also like to point out that I never defended the Bush administration or the situation in Iraq. I fail to see how the Iraq debacle has anything to do with The Thin Red Line or a discussion on the atomic bomb. I see you didn't understand my analysis of Japanese society of 1945 and how the atomic bomb may actually have helped prevent more deathes. I think you should really consider thinking more openly about that issue instead of being so blindly stubborn. I'd like to also point out that fewer people died as a result of war in the last 50 years of the 20th Century than the first 50 years. Let's say around 90 million people died as the result of wars in the first fifty years. I'm estimating, I'm sure the real number is far worse. Now the last fifty years far fewer died. Well, you can easily say, "Well, duh, there were two world wars in the first fifty years." And that's exactly my point. Ironically enough the very weapon that has brought trepidation to millions has perversely helped prevent a third world war. Now I'm not saying nuclear weapons are a good thing. Not at all. I just wanted to share an interesting little tid bit about them. Now of course that all could change tomorrow, but the deathes as a result of war in the last five decades of the 20th Century remain pretty fixed since we're in a new century. Oh well, perhaps Splinter you should focus your rage on reforms in your own nation instead of focusing it on the USA. May I also inquire which morally superior nation you reside in? Considering your vitriol of Americans I'd have to assume that your nation's military has turned in their guns and bombs for sharp pointy sticks.
-
...which came out the same year, and got far more kudos than it deserved. Thin Red Line, while flawed, is ultimately more rewarding and significant than Spielberg's film. (AI and Catch Me if You Can are far better films in his canon).
-
Elitist crap.
-
revisionist history is not always a good thing.
-
...Excellent (and hopefully educational) post! That's all I wanted to say.
-
Actually, not only was Che not Cuban, he wasn't argentian either. he was Irish. his actual surname was Lynch, and as for Che? Che is simply another word for "mate", "friend", or, more fittingly, "comrade". So there you go. i'm not a big malick fan. i didnt think TRL was THAT awe-inspiring, although visually it was completely stunning. However, i certainly didnt dislike it becasue it was REVISIONIST GARBAGE. revisionist? i know. i mean, jesus, next we'll be saying niggers didnt enjoy picking cotton. i mean, christ, whats the world coming to? women working?? whats that all about??? come on, anyone trying to portray anyone non-white, non-american and non-male as anything remotely HUMAN must be off their fucking heads!! Come on, people. how about getting a remake of Birth Of A Nation on the go!! i mean, i love the KKK and all, but a 3 hour silent movie? in black and white???? What the fuck?????
-
every time i see some fucker with a "che" tee-shirt on i want to fucking barf. maybe 1 out of 100 has any clue what he was all about. i don't know what he was about, but i don't wear the goddamned shirt. just because you like 'rage against the machine' you think its cool to wear che shit. well its not. its like tyson's mao tse tsung (sp?) tattoo. tyson has the intellectual capacity of a 5th grader, just like anyone who puts up a che poster in their dorm room.
-
Jul 18, 2003 4:57:16 PM CDT
Wow..this talkback is getting too intelligent for us all..
by talkbackid
I have read everything here, and have one opinion. Sundown made an opinion on which was Spielberg's last good film, which he said was Saving Private Ryan. Of course it was good, but his last good film was released in theatres about one year ago, and it was called Minority Report. AI was too bland and unemotional. I want to see more movies and documentaries on the riot on South America, forgot the country, Argentina or Venezuala, I believe. The time when in the middle of the riot the people from each "warring" faction joined together for a game of mini soccer, as it is called. Yeah, that was a good day in the history of that country.
-
Nobody gives a shit. You're not going to change ANYONE'S opinion in here. NO ONE. You will educate...NO ONE. Nobody gives a shit what your take is on a war that happened probably three decades before you were born. Nobody gives a shit what country you're from, or what you think of another country's foreign policy. It's a fucking movie chat site. So talk about the MOVIES. Yes, Malick's work does have some political bent, and a little political talk IN THE CONTEXT OF HIS FILMS is warranted. But when you all go off (this is both sides of the argument I'm talking to) for an hour and a half crafting these marathon posts citing obscure books and endless details of battles and cultural histories THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FILMS OF TERRENCE MALICK, then you're just being an ass, and for no reason. BECAUSE NONE OF US GIVE A SHIT WHAT YOU THINK. This talkback is about Terrence Malick's movies, not Splinter's or Sunfire's or Shitstain's or whoever's take on Japanese-American relations. Get over yourselves, ALL OF YOU. PS: Terrence Malick doing a Che Guevara movie is a lot more exciting to me than hearing the hundredth article about Hellboy, Superman/Batman, or Lord of the Rings. I hope it gets made, and I'll be first in line for a ticket.
-
Jul 18, 2003 5:29:29 PM CDT
I can't say anything about people wearing Che t-shirts because I
by sith lord byron
Go Astros.
-
Dude -
Lotta emotion there. And to think you're wasting it on a trollfight... I myself have always thought Che Guevara was the sexiest tomboy beardpole on the planet... but then that's just me. -
Christ, I can't believe I never noticed that ... The last half-hour of Saving Private Ryan IS a rip-off of the last half-hour of Kelly's Heroes! Man, Kelly's Heroes was great. And while I've never seen Badlands and didn't care for Days of Heaven much, his Thin Red Line was fucking AMAZING. I'm interested in anything Terence Malick does.
-
"If there's any hope for a revolution in America, it lies in getting Elvis Presley to become Che Guevara." - Phil Ochs
Now THERE'S a movie I'd pay to see. "Priscilla, I believe it's time to smash the capitalist state. On second thought, baby - just bring me another peanut-butter-and-banana sandwich." -
This is the first film news I have hear in a long time that has gotten me excited. Jesus. Mallick is GOD. Thin Red Line is the greatest war film ever made in the history of ever...hmm...CANNOT WAIT TO SEE WHAT COMES OF THIS.
...my...
...god... -
...is a mixed bag, like all of Terrence Malick's films. It contains some of the best visual storytelling you'll ever see combined with some of the phoniest, most laughably pretentious writing you'll ever hear. This is true of DAYS OF HEAVEN as well. Any of Sam Fuller's authentic and unpretentious combat films will tell you more about men in war than this, admittedly beautiful but ultimately phony pseudo-epic.
-
Jul 18, 2003 6:33:04 PM CDT
For a CHE! movie watch the Omar Sharif, Jack Palance version
by spacesheik
It's pretty good actually.
-
One) Splinter you say you don't hate America/Americans but your every argument shows you do. I'm no fan of W. The Idiot, believe me, but I, like others on this board, get really tired of you Brits coming on here and telling us how fucked-up our country is. So you have American friends, huh? Wow, that's amazing. And your friendship is dependent on them having a kind of self-hatred for their country? Did you ever think their kneejerk anglophiles anxious to agree with you? How about Blacks and Jews, do you like them except in cases where they're "uppity"? Your country has more to be ashamed of in its looooooooooong history of imperialism than any other country on the planet. Perhaps it's this guilty conscience that fuels your insistence on bashing the US every chance you get. Lost empires sting like a bitch, don't they? Why don't you do us a favor and apply some of that incredible political insight into your own country's problems? Like I alluded to earlier, this is coming from a diehard liberal Democrat who can't stand Bush. I don't defend him, but I don't believe you know much of anything about my country and my countrymen. And as for the dropping of the bomb...you're a dreamer if you don't think that a overwhelming show of force is needed to beat down tyrants and end wars. If the US felt the same, there would be a swastika over your government buildings right now.
Oh, and, ahem, to others here, two) "Days Of Heaven" is the fucking masterpiece, not "Badlands"! Everyone has that fucking backwards. "Badlands" is OK, DOH is absolute perfection. IN MY OPINION. I have never understood this weird dyslexia that most film snobs have on those two films. Have they watched them??? "Days Of Heaven" is more beautiful, powerful, poetic, effective and economical on a pure storytelling level, and just plain stunning than any Lean/Kubrick/Hitchcock/Ford (pick your favorite overrated director) film I've ever seen. It's like he took an epic love triangle and distilled it down to only the most profound and haunting images. Truly genius. THAT'S why I, for one, can't wait for his return. "The Thin Red Line" on the other hand is, as many have said, fitfully brilliant but ultimately (unfortunately) less than the sum of its parts. Hey, I still own it, I still admire it, but I think that other TBer pegged it when he said it was a film of pieces almost unconnected. -
I see a connection.
-
and features a great, muted performance. I will see this, but I doubt I will embrace it full on. That is the story of my relationship with all of 3 of Malick's flicks.
-
Jul 18, 2003 8:29:39 PM CDT
With Leo DiCaprio as Fidel and Jerry Mathers as the Beaver
by winter_mute
just wait till the rest of the attachments start surfacing
-
Where I come from is not important, but I'll throw you a bone and let you know I most certainly amn't British. You wasted a lot of time on your rant. The majority of which I agree with, incidentally. Folks, I apologise for striking the match in this debate. As most of you probably don't know, a gentle, soft-spoken man called Dr. David Kelly was found dead in Oxford, England today, having taken his own life. He was used as a stooge by the British government in order to out a 'mole' in the Ministry of Defence who accused Alistair Campbell (Blair's spin doctor) of 'sexxing up' intelligence documents to justify the conflict in Iraq. (Which he UNDOUBTEDLY did) I've been fuming about it all day. Its sick, and terribly terribly sad. However, this is not the environment to be venting my personal frustrations at what I (and millions like me) percieve to be one of the most reprehensible acts I've seen in my 29 years. I stand by every word I said, but realise that its pretty pointless posting opinions on a site such as this.
-
he is the fucking man. I reviewed thin Red Line and said it rocked and sent it to the local zine dudes to print...but I hadn't seen the flick. three years layter i buy it and it ruled. Not since the cancallation of Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom have I been so overpowered w/ joie (this time positively cause that Omaha show rocked)by the trivial news bits of our cicero imprisonment...Now give me the dirt on Jim Jarmusch, Wim Wenders, Gary Farmer, Don McKeller, Atom Egoyan, Francois Girard, Terry Zwigoff, Zacharias Kunuk, Alejandro Innaritm and Chris Eyre. That god there will maybe possibly soon be a flick worth the four hour drive to the moo-vee hut. Woo hoo!
-
Jul 18, 2003 11:04:05 PM CDT
ShADDDUP!! Everyone spouting off another's views about this all
by jasondkeldar
Revisionist history is about as legitimate as anthrompomorphis comics making Statements .. Read your history from the people who were there. Vonnegut and others like him were not conservatives, but in their statements on the horror of war they did not make Hitler the misunderstood savior of a people. He was selfish, as were McCarthy, Nixon, and Falwell. But then again so was Clinton, the varied members of the Kennedy clan, and other Democratic poll-watchers who use people's misery to further their agenda.
-
Of course it's fine for you to insult every single American on this server but when we try to discover what grand nation you're from you decide that it's unimportant. What are you afraid of? Perhaps you've come to the realization that whatever nation you name surely has had dubious moments in their history. And that, my arrogant friend, would make you a hypocrite. Why do many non-Americans think they understand every single facet of American life and culture? Did they learn it from Friends or Buffy The Vampire Slayer? Or perhaps from My Big Fat Greek Wedding? People like Splinter repulse me in that they can only focus on the negative aspects of America. Yet many of them readily consume American food, movies, and music on a daily basis. Why do that if you despise the US so much? But in the end they're right, there's not a single admirable aspect to American history or culture.
-
Someone named Sundown wrote: "How come no one ever did a world war II film about that includes the atrocities the Japanese committed against the Chinese which were equal if not greater than what was done to the Jews?"
Actually, there's an amazing film about this subject from the 1950's that is emotional. distrubing, and quite exceptional. It's called "Human Condition". It was made by a Japanese director. Hope that fact doesn't blow your mind too terribly ... -
Now more of those posers will walk around campus wearing those fucking t-shirts.
-
If you have a problem with this man's films it is your problem not his. I feel the same way about Kubrick. If you don't see the merits of the product of this man's labors you are simply wrong. There aren't enough words to explain why you are wrong in print. Perhaps you could move in with me for a while. Spend a couple months. In the morning I will make coffee, prepare breakfast, and continue where we left off the night previous. Eventually if you are intelligent you will understand why you were simply wrong. Otherwise you will be fed to the rabid dogs that I keep secured outside in the yard. Nobody will find your body. Perhaps your DNA will be detected from a bone fragment in a pile of excrement from a rottweiller.
-
APOCALYPSE NOW, FULL METAL JACKET, and THREE KINGS are the three greatest war movies ever made. Neither Ryan or Thin Red Line come close.
-
but for a great take on the war in the pacific: read "The Naked and the Dead". Brilliant, and a great movie just waiting to be made!
-
...the three greatest war films of all time are Operation Delta Force, Iron Eagle III and Wild Geese II. Three Kings only comes 4th.
-
Jul 19, 2003 8:01:25 AM CDT
Guillermo Del Toro gets my vote for director of the live action
by monkey_king
Bring back the BLADE 2/HELLBOY crew and go nuts, just keep it faithful to the Larry Hama G.I. Joe and not that awful cartoon series with laser guns and parachuting Cobra rattler pilots who never die.
-
The only good aspect of THIN RED LINE was Nick Nolte going apeshit trying to take that hill. Those sequences rocked; the rest of the film was pretentious shit.
-
I know and probably other films haver been made. What I was wondering was why it was never explored in a large American film like Thin Red Line. Most WWII films and war films in general from America are pretty much the same. Thats why I love Enemy at the Gates so much. And it doesn't "blow my mind" and why do you feel the need to be a pompous asswipe. I live in NYC. I get to see foreign films all the time. I'm pretty lucky in that regard. But after my whole argument if that's all you got out of it you're pretty sad...like Splinter. And for Ebonic: AMERICAN LIVES ARE MORE IMPORTANT and should be to us and the military. If not then why the hell do we pay our taxes? Should our military put foreign countries citizens lives ahead of their own and their countrymen? Your comment is so naive and retarded it almost threw me to the floor. Philosophically you may be right in some ethereal sense but the whole point of war and a military and a government is to protect its citizens not the citizens of every other country. I hate this globalism crap. I guess Ebonic wants to live in a world where our military ignores the United States problems and runs around policing the world. Because we all know how well that works out.
-
IT'S TRUE!
-
To correct the person who wrote this article....Mr. Guevarra was Argentinian, not Cuban. He participated in the Cuban Revolution siding another 'wonderful' historic figure, Fidel Castro.
Guevarra was also involved in leftist movements all throughout Central America.
Peace from my hood -
I saw this one a few months ago. It made a really great use of Mallick's sort of style, but in a completly different way. The dialogue was much more grounded in realistic conversation, less poetic but no less beautiful.
-
I thought Malick was now directing "The Moviegoer."
-
Yes, I have gun with me all the time, just in case those annoying little bitch of teenagers annoys me in the theatre.
-
Jul 19, 2003 6:33:04 PM CDT
Mallik should do a 12-hour movie about the History of the US of
by chien_sale
Kill me
-
Will a guy with a southern droll narrate the movie? Will the guy narrate in Spanish? "?Como es naturale?" "?Como es la significado de muerto?" THAT WOULD RULE!
-
Guess what? 'Thin Red Line' isn't a war movie at all. It's a poetical meditation on mortality and fear and has fuck-all to do with politics or 'realism'. I loved it and think it's one of my all time favourite films, but clearly, if you were expecting another 'Saving Private Ryan' you were bound to be bored. This film has more to do with art-films like 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour' or the 'sensibilist' filmmaking of Wim Wenders or Werner Herzog. Malick doing 'Che'? No matter how it turns out it's going to be unique. I for one can't wait!!!
-
First, you go picking on other people in a bitter, sarcastic manner by attempting to portray yourself as some sort of superior intellectual, here's a bit of advice and a lesson in manners: it goes without saying that anyone placing a post here is simply giving their opinion. I sincerely don't think that any post here needs a disclaimer in it that says "IN MY OPINION this movie rocked" or "IN MY OPINION this movie sucked." Big deal, so Sundown didn't like THIN RED LINE and you did...it's okay to differ, that's half the fun of being a movie fan, or fan of anything. But there's no need to come off like a half-assed lecturesome bore. Besides, he was right. RED LINE was a boring, overrated crapfest. Secondly, as for your other statement "You want to talk about atrocity? Yours is the ONLY COUNTRY IN HISTORY TO USE THE ATOMIC BOMB" all I can say is HELL YEAH we did, and I'm proud of it. Sorry, but in WWII there was nothing wrong at all with the U.S. pulling the trigger and using them. Truth be told, we probably should've dropped a few more of those babies over the years. Come to think of it, there's some Middle Eastern asswipe hotspots that are pretty well-deserving to go from sand to sheets of glass...
-
The Thin Red Line was one of the most boring films I've ever seen. There were just too many storylines and too many characters, and that was after cutting it down from about 20 hours of footage. As soon as you started to get involved with one set of characters, the movie shifted its focus to another set, and didn't get back to the first set of characters for anothe 20 minutes! And the ad campaign really pissed me off . . . they showed George Clooney and John Travolta prominently in the trailer, and then you find out that the 30 seconds of them that was in the trailer was the grand total of their screen time! Bastards!
-
I'm desperately trying to find a song by a Texan band that came out in the UK in late summer/early autumn 1998. Can't remember the band's name or the name of the single, but the lyrics went: "They made up their mind...and they started packing...left before the sun came up that day...an exit to eternal summer slacking...where were they going without ever knowing the way?" And the chorus went: "Anyone could see the road they were travelling was paved in gold...it's always summer they'll never get cold...they'll never get hungry, they'll never get old and grey..." Can anyone help me out with what the band/song name are? Again, sorry for being off-topic.
-
I Love Terrence Malick - and I don't care who knows it! Thin Red Line was a beautiful film, compelling and gorgeous - it transcends story and entertainment. I loves it. In fact, my user ID was going to be Thin, Red.. (Line!) cause I think its funny uhhuhhuhhuh.... Hate it if you must, but that makes you less than a man. Somehow. Just kidding. Somehow.
-
Wasn't he attached to Walker Percy's novel? And I could have sworn I read that Tim Robbins and Julia Roberts were mentioned in connection with this project (which, if you've read the book, is pretty dead-on casting, imho). Anybody know what happened with this?
-
Nah, I liked it. I also enjoyed "Badlands" and "Days of Heaven." But I did think "Thin Red Line" was unbelievably slow moving, and the voice overs wavered between poignant and laughable... most mostly poignant. I'm glad Malick made this movie. It was an honest attempt to make cinematic art, and while it suffers from from Malick's heavy hand, I'd rather see something problematic and ambitious than some weak-kneed shit. However, I do think Malick's vision of Japanese soldiers sitting in the lotus position while big, beefy Americans murder them is just his Buddhist wet dream. He didn't give the Japanese their due as the hardnosed, never-say-die fighters they were. Warfare in the Pacific was brutal, but look at the ratio of American dead to Japanese dead, ignoring wounded and/or captured. That wide gap you see isn't because Japanese soldiers gave up in this weird Malickian passive resistance manner. They fought, fought, fought to the bitter end. Even as the Emperor prepared to deliver his surrender speech and bombs were falling on Tokyo on the last day of war, die hards attempted a coup to overthrow him and commit the islands to a near-suicidal continuation of a war that they knew was damn well lost. Akira Kurosawa, in his book, "Something Like an Autobiography" mentions plans for every man, woman and child to resist to the death Allied invaders... a plan abandoned when the coup failed. However, I will say this- Japanese soldiers weeping in shame at losing and NOT getting to die for Japan is likely. Again, see "Akira Kurosawa's Dreams" for an interesting take on this.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 209 total posts 207 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 160 total posts 97 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 144 total posts 77 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 64 total posts 60 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 480 total posts 55 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 53 total posts 50 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 118 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 182 total posts 27 posts