Will Hollywood Feel the Impact?

[Chancho]

With a bit of luck (and a lot of honesty and reflection), Hollywood may just rethink its formulaic ritual disrespect of human life and 'violence as entertainment' as a result of these terrorist attacks.

In amongst the many messages that the terrorists have 'delivered' is the less important one mocking Hollywood's blase disrespect for human life in its never ending stream of action flicks - I am sure they appreciated that people the world over would view the unbelievable sight of the WTC collapsing, on fire etc and immediately think - 'It's just like a movie!'. The visual 'effect' of this attack was an important factor in its impact.

Before you start, I am NOT assigning any blame to Hollywood for these attacks, nor advocating censorship, but I am saying that the mocking message of all things American did include the American model of mass entertainment. Could this lead to more responsible film making? I can only dare to dream.

[RedCeltic]

Your right... hollywood acton flicks can be quite dispicable.

Also want to poiint out that I don't think they terrorists thought that they attack would have been as sucsessful. Those buldings where bult with an inner core to prevent being taken out by a 747... however the widebody went through all of it as such a speed, and the fire was so intence it melted the steal. I don't think they could have possibly considered it to have been that sucsessful.

[jose lopez]

just one thing, after all of this Mr steven seagal its going to have lots off work, and steven spilberg as well.......its sad but true

[Nickademus]

i agree
once the feeling settles a bit i can definately see this terror attack being made into a movie, at the very least a amde for tv movie

[Moskitto]

I don't think violent films will go away just because of this. The market will probably slump a bit but because people like to see them (In some cases I wonder why though) so Hollywood will still make them until people stop buying them. I don't think we can really stop violent films unless we stop the market economy, so we need to educate people about socialism.

[pce]

being a hopeful future filmmaker and director, this is very important to me.

first of all, i'd like to point out that violence itself is not the problem. the problem is senseless violence that desensitizes the viewer. a good movie is like any other art form-painting, music, writing, etc. in fact, i believe that film is an even better form of expressive art in that it has the most influence on the most amuont of people. for example, there are many who did not know what d-day was and what "goin to war" until the movie "saving private ryan" came out.

in this respect i believe that film is a very important form of art if used responsibly. however, unfortunatly becasue of its appeal, the industry has found a sure fire method of making production line movies as fast as possible that appeal to the largest market group- teenagers. as a result more and more sensless movies with 'cool' explosions are made, without ever going into what the result of these explosions are. hopefully after these attacks, people will at least think about the aftermath of the 'cool" explosions in movies.

and nickademus, I'D like to make a movie about these terrorist attacks. let me run my idea by you and the rest of the guys: i'd make the whole movie about a normal family or person with a very common place problem- divorce, love, death, depression, etc. it would be a very emotional movie that draws the audience into the main character(s) issue a la -(insert favorite dramatic movie)- then just as the characterss problems are about to be solved, the movie would cut to the news footage of the wtc exlposion with the main character in it. then it would end. furthermore, the movie would be promoted as a regular drama, with no hints of the disaster. this to me, is the best way to personalize the issue and violence in general. what do you think? i'd also like to do something like this with the hiroshima bombing.

and jose lopez, i disagree with your comment about steven spielberg. while he does from time to time make popcorn movies like 'indiana jones' the impact and meaning of his serious movies far outway the negative impacts of his popcorn ones.- "schindlers list," "amistad," "saving private ryan."

interesting side note, when castro saw "jaws" he said -
"one of the better films i have seen. it's a Marxist picture. It shows that businessmen are ready to sell out the safety of the citizens rather that close down against the invasion of the shark." furthermore, the people who finally go to stop the shark are the working class. don't start me with "jaws" i can go on forever...it's one of my favorites.

[Drifter]

[quote]Quote: for example, there are many who did not know what d-day was and what "goin to war" until the movie "saving private ryan" came out."quote]

there are huge amounts of film and literature on the second world war. The gore in spielbergs film may have been a very realistic example of the horror soldiers experience,, but that is were the reality ends.
as a historical document it is complete bullshit.
the movie is an absolutely sickening piece of filmmaking,,
not because of the gore, that i can take, but giving all the glory to the american soldiers like that!!
were were the british and the canadians who were the main force in the invasion?
Fact: the americans did not have larger manpower than the poms and canadians until about a month after the initial invasion.
Gosh!, who would have guessed from what we see as Hanks unit moves inland? Its as if the other allies did not exist even though they took the full force of german elites before any amercans did.
True the americans did take omaha beach and it was a slaughter, the brittish who drove the landing craft aren't mentioned,
and what of the stuff ups and idiocy of american forces that led to it is there? Such as refusal of british armoured veichles designed to take ot fortifications, because the americans didn't invent them. plus amercan planes were sent to soften up the german gunners, but missed their targets completely.
There's still more,, but i can't be bothered to write about it.
exept to say who are these americans to re-write history to suit them?

(u-571 is even more total bullshit, more so that private ryan, but don't get me started)

[pce]

drifter, first of all my point is that private ryan made many people realize the terror of war. what it means when politicians say "we are at war."

as far as the one sidedness, i have two points to make.
you cannot express all points of view in a film. film is not like writing. it is like a magnifying glass on a book. film will never, nor should it, have the detail of a book. also, the movie was not about wwII, no movie can encompass such an enormous subject. the movie was about what war did to a very select and small group of people. there would be no mention of the british, canadians, etc. if the main characters never encountered them.

also, don't forget how it portrayed how many americans, in their rage, killed potential prisoners of war. it was not completely one sided. the movie was about what war does to people, not who went to war and why.

"there are huge amounts of film and literature on the second world war. The gore in spielbergs film may have been a very realistic example of the horror soldiers experience,, but that is were the reality ends. "

there has never been a movie that has portrayed the act of war like this movie. and what you call 'gore' i call the truth, which is something every war movie has ignored, with the exception of 'apocalypse now.'

in anycase, my point in bringing the movie up was to show how influential film is.

[jose lopez]

ok Im sorry if you didnt like my comment about MR spilberg, but heres a movie for him..and for you off couse, I whant to start it in whith bin laden fighting against the russiand and the CIA in the middle, and I whant to see all the dirty work of the CIA and the israel army, Im really interested in whaching both sides....I know how a american family lives and falls in love whith a neibour, but I dont know what happens when you see on TV your husbend and your son killed by crossedfire between palestinian and israely militarys or maybe when a family is having dinner and the sound of a missile interupts the soup....I dont whant to see the tipical american history cuzz I see it every fuckin day, and I lived it myself, but I cant imagine how it feel to be in the other side, including been persecuted by the koran laws.....lets see all of that in the movie, I dare you and steven..........problaby it would be censored by americans you whana bet?????

[pce]

of course jose, there's no way in hell a movie like that could be made.....

[RedCeltic]

Unfortunatly Hollywood controls the movie industry so a false version of history... the same American propaganda that is drummed into the minds of American children in schools. I mentioned something related to this in "Chit Chat" about an HBO eppic "Band of Brothers"... I saw they displayed two things that Americans might find conterversial. One was an American fighting on the side of Germany... the other is the brutal execution of POW's by the Americans. I fully expected to see a bunch of old farts with hats with pins all over them protesting somewhere. If Hollywood wants to make films about history they better damn well get it right. Their excuse for an American Biast movie about Pearl Harbor (even more biast than Tora Tora Tora which is older) is that movies are purely entertainment. They left out a big chunk of history that occured before Pearl Harbor... and now Americans are once again subjected to the same mis-history the leads them to think once again that Jappan just attacked out of the blue with not being provoked. As a history/archaeology major I'm annoyed at movies that convey false history.

But then the movie writers will say that it's only entertanment and is only giving one perspective. However the problem lies in how people who don't read history, and don't bother to find out the whole story will use this as the whole truth and therefore in relation to American history, consider the actions taken always to be justified.

The American Revolution is an example of this. High School history books painstakenly try to drum into people's minds quotes like, "No taxation without representation" without knowing that the tax levied on the colonialists was to pay for the French and Indian war which in the mind of the Empire was waged to protect the Brittish colonies.

The recent movie "The Patriot" while aluding to some of the barborous acts commited in the French and Indian war takes on a whole other level of misrepresentation by atatching war crimes commited by colonialists to the Brittish. The crimes depicted in the movie where truthful in that they where commited, however it was the colonialists that commited them upon either loyalists or on the gerneral population as propaganda. The also never mention attacks on Canada. So if your going to make a movie about history at least do it correctly.

[Chief Rebel Angel]

WHOA PALASTINE HAVE A MILITARY?!?! no kiddin huh?!? (insert sarcasm here)

[jose lopez]

thanks red celtic for your reply , its good and informative.......chief I dont ge the joke sorry.....

[ampere]

It's impossible to get every perspective in a 2 or 3 hour movie so generally it is filmed from one angle. The main point, is the angle historically accurate? Film makers take a lot of artistic liberty to making films more interesting. Also the screen play they are working from are written from that perspective. Wasn't Saving Private Ryan based on the true story and (also classic movie) of the Sullivan Family?

I think in order to get the entire historical perspective a TV miniseries such as 'Roots' is required.

Pce, go get your financial backing

[Chancho]

I don't agree with those who have said you cannot represent an accurate story in just 2-3 hours. If film makers would DARE to be brave enough to include unanswered questions, ambiguity, subtlety, open endings and humanised characters that are not mere symbols of 'good' or 'evil', people would have to ... dare I say it? ... think for themselves!

Definites, certainty and black and white truths do not exist - only subtle shades of grey. Unless people are willing to represent such shades on screen and view life in terms of subtleties, instead of absolutes, they will always be shackled to simplistic thought - and hence, miss the point. Example - the current pervasive rhetoric of revenge.

Why are people afraid to challenge the intellect with complexity?

[pce]

i agree with what redceltic said. (might i add that the miniseries he is talking about was produced by speilberg)

chanco, you are absolutely right about the black and white. most movies are "good guy"+"bad guy"+"conflict"="movie." however this not true for all. watch 'traffic' for example or even just about every movie on the movie post thread. as for making an accurate representation in 2-3 hours, you are right, it is possible. however you can't actually physically show ever point of view. you can ellude to them as ampere said "The main point, is the angle historically accurate?"

as for, "If film makers would DARE to be brave enough to include unanswered questions," it is not so much that the filmmakers would dare, it's more no one will finance them to dare. again it goes back to the problem that the industry wants as many movies with as little risk as possible so they can spoon feed them to teenagers who just go to the movies because it is friday night. (again this is not true in every case, some people, under certain circumstances are able to make the movies they want) no one wants to learn anything from movies, they just want to sit back and be entertained. (it's scary that killing is what entertains most people)

everything you say is justied, but you can blame it on the industry and money, not the filmmakers, the filmmakers are out there, its just that they are not allowed to do what they want as artists, they are forced to do what the industry wants as entertainers.

the reason steven speilberg makes popcorn movies from time to time is so that he has a good enough name (good mean 'financialy sound investment') so that when he wants to make a 'schindlers list' or 'amistad,' he is allowed to. he could never start out with movies such as these.

another fine filmmaker filled with grays is stanley kubrick. check him out.

[Chancho]

pce ... I agree with your points. I should have clarified that I was using the term 'filmmaker' to encompass all those involved with the various stages of producing a film. One could argue that if the actual film artisans refused to compromise, the studios would not have so much power over the final product. Each is responsible for his or her own contribution to the final film - artistically, ethically and ideologically.

[pce]

yes you are right. filmmakers do have a responsibility and most, with the exception of a handful, are not doing anything. most are giving in. but i assure you i will not be one of them

i only hope the movie that is supposed to be in the process about che will not be so black and white. i have heard it is supposed to be based on the john lee anderson book so that's good. but you can't expect too much from this movie as making it at all is very risky in the first place. i have also heard that the actor who is supposed to play che, becicio del toro, has been fighting for the movie alot (and he's puerto rican). so far everything seems positive as far as that movie....

[RedCeltic]

Oh that's right... I forgot about that... you mention before you where interested in film pce... good luck with that...

I think unfortunatly the delema lies in the hands of educators and not fimmakers. In a capitalist world (this one) fims are produced in order to generate large profit. It costs an apauliing $10 in NY to go see an evening screening. The point is... if you made a film about history and painstakenly added all the historical facts and info... you would have a documentery and it would possibly bomb. I think people care little about the historical acuracy, and (not to sound eletist) people aren't well educated about American history in America. So clearly the fault lies with America's faulty educational system.

I have views on that but it's getting of the subject.

[pce]

thanks for the encouragement redceltic and ampere.

you are right redceltic. the thing is that movies nowadays cost anywhere from $10 to $200 million dollars to make (that's pretty modest). so why should anyone risk all that money on a movie that's historic/different/challenging/though provoking? when they can much more easily make a movie with cool slow-motion shooting and cars blowing up which attracks the bulk audience-teenagers?

this is not to say that these types of movies are bad, they can still be well made and effective works of art if they have an intelligent and engaging story, however there needs to be a balance. just like every other art form, there room for every type of story.