|
Post by llanwydd on Apr 7, 2020 21:34:04 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts? Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death. Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved. Then here are some movies morally questionable in general: The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils. The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place. Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there. James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here. Like Capturing the Friedmans where the director, deliberately withheld some information and it made it feel like the documentary tipped too far within one direction. It felt like jhim or less advocating for their whole innocence. I do feel their was alot of merit to the documentary, but the presentation is questionable. Same with Don't Fuck with Cats. I saw that film and I think you have taken the meaning wrong. To me it seems to say very clearly that the father was guilty but the son was not, which I think is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 7, 2020 22:18:38 GMT
You mention docs so are we talking morally questionable in how they present facts? Amadeus - villainizes Sallueri who in real life wasn't a jealous prick that drove Mozart to death. Schindler's List - presents Schindler purely as an uninvolved observer until he isn't. In reality, Schindler was a Nazi spy who's work helped the Nazis invade Poland, so he kinda helped kill way more people than he saved. Then here are some movies morally questionable in general: The Dark Knight - torture, illegal spying, and fascism are all necessary evils. The Lion King - we have rightful rulers, and it's okay that they eat us because eventually we get to eat their shit. Also, those starving darkies need to stay in their place. Saving Private Ryan - you should really kill POWs. Also, 8 people to save 1 might be okay?The movie never really decides, but seems to lean there.James Bond - Archelaus' Goldfinger example where he rapes a lesbian straight is a good starting point. The whole series kinda belongs here. I don't think it promotes killing POWs. A few surrendering troops are shot at the end of the Normandy sequence, but the film certainly isn't condoning that behavior. Those weren't even Nazi soldiers surrendering, they were conscripted soldiers from Czechoslovakia. Or are you making a common misconception: As far as eight men to save one, plenty of missions require potential risk to more men than the human objective, whether to extract or terminate the target. The film itself probably questions the morality of this equation more than the soldiers would, hence the radar site sequence giving their side mission greater importance in the grand scheme of the war. TDK is a fascinating watch (well, minus the heavy handed ferry sequence) for its sociopolitical commentary. The Winter Soldier addressed similar themes from a more overt geopolitical angle. Both of these superhero films ask the viewer how comfortable they are ceding power to authorities depending on the threat level, and how far they're willing to stretch legal and moral limits to achieve a 'greater good.' They differ in that Batman (ironically as a vigilante) represents authority in his respective film, while Captain America represents the will of the people to resist totalitarianism. TDK certainly exists in more of a moral gray area with its messaging. (Though it should be noted that Nick Fury, one of the 'heroes' of the MCU, is completely onboard with Project Insight and only changes his mind when he realizes he no longer has control of it. In that regard he's no different than the film's villain; they simply have slightly different agendas. This is one of the reasons I think TWS, despite being one of the more respected MCU films, still doesn't get the credit it deserves as a think piece beyond the bluster of super heroics.) I know Willie didn't stab Mellish, but he did shoot Miller (the guy who spared him) and then get executed while surrendering by Upham (the guy who argued to spare him), so what are we talking about here? Upham also, while seemingly just trying to do the right thing with POWs, is then portrayed as a coward from that point on up until murdering Willie, so retroactively his sparing of POW Willie earlier looks like a byproduct of his cowardice. --- Taking the radar site is portrayed as Miller cracking up. None of his men wanted to do it, and it cost them their medic. I suppose them protecting the bridge could be argued as finding a more important thing to fight for. But then you have all this speechifying from guys like the general with the Lincoln letter and Ted Danson about how noble a cause theirs is, until even Horvath says "Saving Private Ryan might be the only decent thing we pull out of this godawful, shitty mess", a line I've never understood for 22 years. And considering this has never actually been done before (the real story with the Niland brothers is a lot less dramatic and bizarre) who knows what their reaction to this mission would be? Miller glibly calls it a PR stunt, which I'd find believable considering all the war bond propaganda going on back then, but we know from that 45 minute long Lincoln letter scene that the general is completely earnest in his intentions. --- It's mainly DCEU fans that think a movie can't be smart without a desaturated color palette and nihilistic atmosphere that don't give TWS credit, but yes, I agree with all of that. Fury was onboard at first, but he learned a harsh lesson about how easily it could be perverted. Batman gave himself a "get out of jail free" card a. By giving control of it to Fox, the least evil man in the world and b. Destroying it right away. But that rubs me the wrong way because that's not how these things really play out. As with TWS, they become perverted and dangerous and there aren't two nobler than thee guys at the helm ready to give up that power when it's no longer needed. I actually do like that ferry scene, even though it becomes completely pointless by TDKR. Ultimately, Joker was right.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 0:20:58 GMT
Like Capturing the Friedmans where the director, deliberately withheld some information and it made it feel like the documentary tipped too far within one direction. It felt like jhim or less advocating for their whole innocence. I do feel their was alot of merit to the documentary, but the presentation is questionable. Same with Don't Fuck with Cats. I saw that film and I think you have taken the meaning wrong. To me it seems to say very clearly that the father was guilty but the son was not, which I think is the truth. but we don't know for certain and Jarecki did omit key facts (an entire third co-defendant was absent, Jesse Friedman's confession on a talk show isn't in the film), thats my point, it feels too slanted in the sons side.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 8, 2020 0:29:50 GMT
In Star Wars, did they really have to blow up the Death Star, killing not only Grand Moff Tarkin (who did deserve it), but also many, many accountants, custodians, shop keepers, chefs, and maintenance workers? Ever see Clerks.? They get into a moral debate about that very subject.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 1:11:05 GMT
BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI - manipulating the story so the British officers behave in ways they would not have for real, as well as making the Japanese commander different from his historical counterpart--it may make the story more eccentric and interesting but I wonder the cost since it is distorting the truth, and for what end? MOBY DICK 1956 -- The only really questionable thing for me is the use of real whaling scenes. They are so brief they could have used props instead. ZULU 1964 - although a rousing film it is full of questionable behavior and historical inaccuracies. They make one character who was a non-drinker into a drunk, and the Belgian cripple who talks so enthusiastically about Zulu stamina is the one who goes on a rampage stabbing them to death! The Christian missionaries are portrayed as complete basket cases and the ending is such a fraud--suggesting the Zulus retreated because they were saluting fellow braves--complete nonsense. The Zulus reportedly retreated because the relief column came. By ending it as they did, it makes the Zulus look like they were embracing multiculturalism and colonialism. If they had followed the truth, the film would not seem so dated. FIREFOX 1982 - Although we finally get a big studio Hollywood film that depicts the USSR in a profoundly negative light (after years of films where it suggested they were good at heart) it implied that the Soviet Union was a Russian enterprise and even included a weird scene where Eastwood says to someone "what is it with you Jews anyway? Don't you ever get tired of fighting city hall?" According to Solzhenitsyn, the founding of the Soviet Union was a primarily Jewish enterprise and he lamented the Western image that Communist = Russian because it was false. good cites.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 1:18:27 GMT
I don't think it promotes killing POWs. A few surrendering troops are shot at the end of the Normandy sequence, but the film certainly isn't condoning that behavior. Those weren't even Nazi soldiers surrendering, they were conscripted soldiers from Czechoslovakia. Or are you making a common misconception: As far as eight men to save one, plenty of missions require potential risk to more men than the human objective, whether to extract or terminate the target. The film itself probably questions the morality of this equation more than the soldiers would, hence the radar site sequence giving their side mission greater importance in the grand scheme of the war. TDK is a fascinating watch (well, minus the heavy handed ferry sequence) for its sociopolitical commentary. The Winter Soldier addressed similar themes from a more overt geopolitical angle. Both of these superhero films ask the viewer how comfortable they are ceding power to authorities depending on the threat level, and how far they're willing to stretch legal and moral limits to achieve a 'greater good.' They differ in that Batman (ironically as a vigilante) represents authority in his respective film, while Captain America represents the will of the people to resist totalitarianism. TDK certainly exists in more of a moral gray area with its messaging. (Though it should be noted that Nick Fury, one of the 'heroes' of the MCU, is completely onboard with Project Insight and only changes his mind when he realizes he no longer has control of it. In that regard he's no different than the film's villain; they simply have slightly different agendas. This is one of the reasons I think TWS, despite being one of the more respected MCU films, still doesn't get the credit it deserves as a think piece beyond the bluster of super heroics.) I know Willie didn't stab Mellish, but he did shoot Miller (the guy who spared him) and then get executed while surrendering by Upham (the guy who argued to spare him), so what are we talking about here? Upham also, while seemingly just trying to do the right thing with POWs, is then portrayed as a coward from that point on up until murdering Willie, so retroactively his sparing of POW Willie earlier looks like a byproduct of his cowardice. --- Taking the radar site is portrayed as Miller cracking up. None of his men wanted to do it, and it cost them their medic. I suppose them protecting the bridge could be argued as finding a more important thing to fight for. But then you have all this speechifying from guys like the general with the Lincoln letter and Ted Danson about how noble a cause theirs is, until even Horvath says "Saving Private Ryan might be the only decent thing we pull out of this godawful, shitty mess", a line I've never understood for 22 years. And considering this has never actually been done before (the real story with the Niland brothers is a lot less dramatic and bizarre) who knows what their reaction to this mission would be? Miller glibly calls it a PR stunt, which I'd find believable considering all the war bond propaganda going on back then, but we know from that 45 minute long Lincoln letter scene that the general is completely earnest in his intentions. --- It's mainly DCEU fans that think a movie can't be smart without a desaturated color palette and nihilistic atmosphere that don't give TWS credit, but yes, I agree with all of that. Fury was onboard at first, but he learned a harsh lesson about how easily it could be perverted. Batman gave himself a "get out of jail free" card a. By giving control of it to Fox, the least evil man in the world and b. Destroying it right away. But that rubs me the wrong way because that's not how these things really play out. As with TWS, they become perverted and dangerous and there aren't two nobler than thee guys at the helm ready to give up that power when it's no longer needed. I actually do like that ferry scene, even though it becomes completely pointless by TDKR. Ultimately, Joker was right. I'd argue as far as Saving Private Ryan goes, its a bit questionable the way it portrays the movie sort of asking with the opening scene, "what's the cost of something at the price of something far greater?" and then the second half sort of manipulates that by making it seem glorious which juxtaposes with the more cynical opening of the movie.
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Apr 8, 2020 1:20:50 GMT
Rosemary's Baby Chinatown
|
|
Jason143
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@glaceon
Posts: 1,242
Likes: 610
|
Post by Jason143 on Apr 8, 2020 1:22:00 GMT
Indiana Jones Temple of Doom
Yea i understand all the racism complaints, hinduphobia, sexism and white saviour complex depiction - but its a great movie regardless of all that
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 8, 2020 4:19:07 GMT
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
I like this movie a lot and find it to be very creative, but all the characters are morally reprehensible.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 8, 2020 4:19:52 GMT
Indiana Jones Temple of Doom Yea i understand all the racism complaints, hinduphobia, sexism and white saviour complex depiction - but its a great movie regardless of all that Agreed. It's actually my favourite installment in the series.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 5:00:12 GMT
A Clockwork Orange (1971) I like this movie a lot and find it to be very creative, but all the characters are morally reprehensible. I don't think thats going against what the movie intended at all.
|
|
|
Post by darkreviewer2013 on Apr 8, 2020 5:02:10 GMT
A Clockwork Orange (1971) I like this movie a lot and find it to be very creative, but all the characters are morally reprehensible. I don't think thats going against what the movie intended at all. Actually, you're right now that I think of it.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 5:10:23 GMT
I don't think thats going against what the movie intended at all. Actually, you're right now that I think of it. A more interesting point you could argue is, would the movie somewhat be downplaying youths responsibility in the youths respective actions by implying big government and lack of father figures are a suitable catalyst to help guide their reprehensible behavior, thus justifying why they are the way they are?.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Apr 8, 2020 13:14:48 GMT
I don't think it promotes killing POWs. A few surrendering troops are shot at the end of the Normandy sequence, but the film certainly isn't condoning that behavior. Those weren't even Nazi soldiers surrendering, they were conscripted soldiers from Czechoslovakia. Or are you making a common misconception: As far as eight men to save one, plenty of missions require potential risk to more men than the human objective, whether to extract or terminate the target. The film itself probably questions the morality of this equation more than the soldiers would, hence the radar site sequence giving their side mission greater importance in the grand scheme of the war. TDK is a fascinating watch (well, minus the heavy handed ferry sequence) for its sociopolitical commentary. The Winter Soldier addressed similar themes from a more overt geopolitical angle. Both of these superhero films ask the viewer how comfortable they are ceding power to authorities depending on the threat level, and how far they're willing to stretch legal and moral limits to achieve a 'greater good.' They differ in that Batman (ironically as a vigilante) represents authority in his respective film, while Captain America represents the will of the people to resist totalitarianism. TDK certainly exists in more of a moral gray area with its messaging. (Though it should be noted that Nick Fury, one of the 'heroes' of the MCU, is completely onboard with Project Insight and only changes his mind when he realizes he no longer has control of it. In that regard he's no different than the film's villain; they simply have slightly different agendas. This is one of the reasons I think TWS, despite being one of the more respected MCU films, still doesn't get the credit it deserves as a think piece beyond the bluster of super heroics.) I know Willie didn't stab Mellish, but he did shoot Miller (the guy who spared him) and then get executed while surrendering by Upham (the guy who argued to spare him), so what are we talking about here? Upham also, while seemingly just trying to do the right thing with POWs, is then portrayed as a coward from that point on up until murdering Willie, so retroactively his sparing of POW Willie earlier looks like a byproduct of his cowardice. --- Taking the radar site is portrayed as Miller cracking up. None of his men wanted to do it, and it cost them their medic. I suppose them protecting the bridge could be argued as finding a more important thing to fight for. But then you have all this speechifying from guys like the general with the Lincoln letter and Ted Danson about how noble a cause theirs is, until even Horvath says "Saving Private Ryan might be the only decent thing we pull out of this godawful, shitty mess", a line I've never understood for 22 years. And considering this has never actually been done before (the real story with the Niland brothers is a lot less dramatic and bizarre) who knows what their reaction to this mission would be? Miller glibly calls it a PR stunt, which I'd find believable considering all the war bond propaganda going on back then, but we know from that 45 minute long Lincoln letter scene that the general is completely earnest in his intentions. We can agree to disagree on the radar thing, I guess. To me it was like protecting the bridge; the lives potentially saved outweighed those lost. I've always thought that was Miller's thinking. Danson's line made no sense to me, I think any CO would've seen that mission as ludicrous. It would be one thing if it were a rescue mission and Ryan is trapped in a specific location. But to send troops out randomly looking for one guy in the middle of the front somewhere? The logistics alone make my head hurt. The Horvath line made all the sense in the world to me in that moment. He's trying to find a kind of righteous battlefield motivation for what they're about to do. Their options at that point are: 1. Walk away, leaving Ryan to die with his unit (making them cowards as well as having sacrificed their own men for nothing on the way there) 2. Take Ryan by force (and still leave those other men to die facing impossible odds) 3. Face their fate together knowing they did right by those who died and those who could find their way home after the war. They fought for the liberation of Europe, sure. But in this moment, they can justify all the terrible things they had to endure by knowing at least they saved this one man. This is where fate brought them, this is where they can make a difference. Probably the best thing in any aspect of life, not just combat, is having a clear objective, and they absolutely had it right then and there. To me they made the sensible choice as soldiers. Even if they had their reservations about the mission from the start, this is where they are now. They either fight and win, die together or walk away knowing they left their comrades in the lurch. The only real debate in Miller's mind was probably defying orders and risking the lives of the men already under his command. Upham executing the German soldier is truly puzzling to me. I don't know what Spielberg was going for with that character in general. Was he supposed to be the audience's proxy? He represents peacetime morality in a time of war? He doesn't know how to confront the ugly violence of war and overreacts once he's allowed the horror to go too far? I don't know. Upham allowing Mellish to die is one of the hardest scenes to watch in all of cinema. The cowardice is revolting. It's a fun premise for a story, but ultimately unrealistic. In reality it'd go down as it did with Fritz Niland. If Ryan showed up somewhere, they'd send him home.
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 8, 2020 14:44:09 GMT
I know Willie didn't stab Mellish, but he did shoot Miller (the guy who spared him) and then get executed while surrendering by Upham (the guy who argued to spare him), so what are we talking about here? Upham also, while seemingly just trying to do the right thing with POWs, is then portrayed as a coward from that point on up until murdering Willie, so retroactively his sparing of POW Willie earlier looks like a byproduct of his cowardice. --- Taking the radar site is portrayed as Miller cracking up. None of his men wanted to do it, and it cost them their medic. I suppose them protecting the bridge could be argued as finding a more important thing to fight for. But then you have all this speechifying from guys like the general with the Lincoln letter and Ted Danson about how noble a cause theirs is, until even Horvath says "Saving Private Ryan might be the only decent thing we pull out of this godawful, shitty mess", a line I've never understood for 22 years. And considering this has never actually been done before (the real story with the Niland brothers is a lot less dramatic and bizarre) who knows what their reaction to this mission would be? Miller glibly calls it a PR stunt, which I'd find believable considering all the war bond propaganda going on back then, but we know from that 45 minute long Lincoln letter scene that the general is completely earnest in his intentions. We can agree to disagree on the radar thing, I guess. To me it was like protecting the bridge; the lives potentially saved outweighed those lost. I've always thought that was Miller's thinking. Danson's line made no sense to me, I think any CO would've seen that mission as ludicrous. It would be one thing if it were a rescue mission and Ryan is trapped in a specific location. But to send troops out randomly looking for one guy in the middle of the front somewhere? The logistics alone make my head hurt. The Horvath line made all the sense in the world to me in that moment. He's trying to find a kind of righteous battlefield motivation for what they're about to do. Their options at that point are: 1. Walk away, leaving Ryan to die with his unit (making them cowards as well as having sacrificed their own men for nothing on the way there) 2. Take Ryan by force (and still leave those other men to die facing impossible odds) 3. Face their fate together knowing they did right by those who died and those who could find their way home after the war. They fought for the liberation of Europe, sure. But in this moment, they can justify all the terrible things they had to endure by knowing at least they saved this one man. This is where fate brought them, this is where they can make a difference. Probably the best thing in any aspect of life, not just combat, is having a clear objective, and they absolutely had it right then and there. To me they made the sensible choice as soldiers. Even if they had their reservations about the mission from the start, this is where they are now. They either fight and win, die together or walk away knowing they left their comrades in the lurch. The only real debate in Miller's mind was probably defying orders and risking the lives of the men already under his command. Upham executing the German soldier is truly puzzling to me. I don't know what Spielberg was going for with that character in general. Was he supposed to be the audience's proxy? He represents peacetime morality in a time of war? He doesn't know how to confront the ugly violence of war and overreacts once he's allowed the horror to go too far? I don't know. Upham allowing Mellish to die is one of the hardest scenes to watch in all of cinema. The cowardice is revolting.
It's a fun premise for a story, but ultimately unrealistic. In reality it'd go down as it did with Fritz Niland. If Ryan showed up somewhere, they'd send him home. I always assumed Upham was not only an audience surrogate, but meant to also illustrate an social and mental breakdown of a soldier at war. As the whole movie progresses he slowly succumbs to the mental gymnastics of war and the reality and nature of it culminating with him arguably now becoming more cynical of it as his arc culminates as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2020 16:44:16 GMT
Salo, The Human Centipede, A Serbian Film, The War Zone, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer, Gigli
|
|
|
Post by forca84 on Apr 8, 2020 18:25:19 GMT
Alot of Westerns... Finding out many Horses were purposely tripped for scenes and killed if they got injured is depressing.
Several of the Cannibal movies... one film they literally launched a Monkey at a Snake. It looks at the Camera as it's slowly being devoured...
At least the maker of "Cannibal Holocaust" regretted the killing of animals later on. (Yes. They had to do several takes. And get more animals.)
Apparently "Milo & Otis" is basically an animal snuff film... Throwing them off Cliffs, Encountering Bears and Crabs, etc. Allegedly several Kittens and Dogs died all for the sake of shooting a kids movie. As a kid I thought the movie was cute. As an adult it's very uncomfortable in retrospect.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Apr 9, 2020 0:26:54 GMT
I know Willie didn't stab Mellish, but he did shoot Miller (the guy who spared him) and then get executed while surrendering by Upham (the guy who argued to spare him), so what are we talking about here? Upham also, while seemingly just trying to do the right thing with POWs, is then portrayed as a coward from that point on up until murdering Willie, so retroactively his sparing of POW Willie earlier looks like a byproduct of his cowardice. --- Taking the radar site is portrayed as Miller cracking up. None of his men wanted to do it, and it cost them their medic. I suppose them protecting the bridge could be argued as finding a more important thing to fight for. But then you have all this speechifying from guys like the general with the Lincoln letter and Ted Danson about how noble a cause theirs is, until even Horvath says "Saving Private Ryan might be the only decent thing we pull out of this godawful, shitty mess", a line I've never understood for 22 years. And considering this has never actually been done before (the real story with the Niland brothers is a lot less dramatic and bizarre) who knows what their reaction to this mission would be? Miller glibly calls it a PR stunt, which I'd find believable considering all the war bond propaganda going on back then, but we know from that 45 minute long Lincoln letter scene that the general is completely earnest in his intentions. We can agree to disagree on the radar thing, I guess. To me it was like protecting the bridge; the lives potentially saved outweighed those lost. I've always thought that was Miller's thinking. Danson's line made no sense to me, I think any CO would've seen that mission as ludicrous. It would be one thing if it were a rescue mission and Ryan is trapped in a specific location. But to send troops out randomly looking for one guy in the middle of the front somewhere? The logistics alone make my head hurt. The Horvath line made all the sense in the world to me in that moment. He's trying to find a kind of righteous battlefield motivation for what they're about to do. Their options at that point are: 1. Walk away, leaving Ryan to die with his unit (making them cowards as well as having sacrificed their own men for nothing on the way there) 2. Take Ryan by force (and still leave those other men to die facing impossible odds) 3. Face their fate together knowing they did right by those who died and those who could find their way home after the war. They fought for the liberation of Europe, sure. But in this moment, they can justify all the terrible things they had to endure by knowing at least they saved this one man. This is where fate brought them, this is where they can make a difference. Probably the best thing in any aspect of life, not just combat, is having a clear objective, and they absolutely had it right then and there. To me they made the sensible choice as soldiers. Even if they had their reservations about the mission from the start, this is where they are now. They either fight and win, die together or walk away knowing they left their comrades in the lurch. The only real debate in Miller's mind was probably defying orders and risking the lives of the men already under his command. Upham executing the German soldier is truly puzzling to me. I don't know what Spielberg was going for with that character in general. Was he supposed to be the audience's proxy? He represents peacetime morality in a time of war? He doesn't know how to confront the ugly violence of war and overreacts once he's allowed the horror to go too far? I don't know. Upham allowing Mellish to die is one of the hardest scenes to watch in all of cinema. The cowardice is revolting. It's a fun premise for a story, but ultimately unrealistic. In reality it'd go down as it did with Fritz Niland. If Ryan showed up somewhere, they'd send him home. I definitely agree with the logic of taking the machine gun nest, I just don't think the movie does. Everyone acts like Miller's lost it, and he even sound unhinged going in, snapping at his men. And I guess that makes sense @ Horvath. Upham is not exactly a peacenik, but is a little too caught up with those pesky "rules", like the annoying police captain in a Dirty Harry movie. A reoccurring theme is that the characters aren't there to do "the decent thing", such as when Vin Diesel gets nailed trying to help the little girl. Letting POW Willie go is also referred to cynically by Reiben as "the decent thing", and we know how that works out for Miller. Upham executing Willie later thus feels like the moment he grows up and learns to do what needs to be done, complete with a low angle shot (representing strength) and a swelling Williams score. I think most directors would have portrayed this as a somber, dark side moment, but for Spielberg it's an audience cheer moment. Pretty ugly stuff.
|
|
maxwellperfect
Junior Member
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star_yellow.png)
@maxwellperfect
Posts: 3,966
Likes: 1,684
|
Post by maxwellperfect on Apr 9, 2020 2:51:36 GMT
How to Make a Murderer. The pieces of crap who made it deliberately left out incriminating details while throwing in evidence-free "Well, many THIS happened" scenarios. I'm glad the scumbag is going to die in prison, and I wish nothing good in the lives or careers of the makers of the doc. Can you tell I'm angry about it? But you like the movie?
|
|
|
Post by hi224 on Apr 9, 2020 2:53:44 GMT
We can agree to disagree on the radar thing, I guess. To me it was like protecting the bridge; the lives potentially saved outweighed those lost. I've always thought that was Miller's thinking. Danson's line made no sense to me, I think any CO would've seen that mission as ludicrous. It would be one thing if it were a rescue mission and Ryan is trapped in a specific location. But to send troops out randomly looking for one guy in the middle of the front somewhere? The logistics alone make my head hurt. The Horvath line made all the sense in the world to me in that moment. He's trying to find a kind of righteous battlefield motivation for what they're about to do. Their options at that point are: 1. Walk away, leaving Ryan to die with his unit (making them cowards as well as having sacrificed their own men for nothing on the way there) 2. Take Ryan by force (and still leave those other men to die facing impossible odds) 3. Face their fate together knowing they did right by those who died and those who could find their way home after the war. They fought for the liberation of Europe, sure. But in this moment, they can justify all the terrible things they had to endure by knowing at least they saved this one man. This is where fate brought them, this is where they can make a difference. Probably the best thing in any aspect of life, not just combat, is having a clear objective, and they absolutely had it right then and there. To me they made the sensible choice as soldiers. Even if they had their reservations about the mission from the start, this is where they are now. They either fight and win, die together or walk away knowing they left their comrades in the lurch. The only real debate in Miller's mind was probably defying orders and risking the lives of the men already under his command. Upham executing the German soldier is truly puzzling to me. I don't know what Spielberg was going for with that character in general. Was he supposed to be the audience's proxy? He represents peacetime morality in a time of war? He doesn't know how to confront the ugly violence of war and overreacts once he's allowed the horror to go too far? I don't know. Upham allowing Mellish to die is one of the hardest scenes to watch in all of cinema. The cowardice is revolting. It's a fun premise for a story, but ultimately unrealistic. In reality it'd go down as it did with Fritz Niland. If Ryan showed up somewhere, they'd send him home. I definitely agree with the logic of taking the machine gun nest, I just don't think the movie does. Everyone acts like Miller's lost it, and he even sound unhinged going in, snapping at his men. And I guess that makes sense @ Horvath. Upham is not exactly a peacenik, but is a little too caught up with those pesky "rules", like the annoying police captain in a Dirty Harry movie. A reoccurring theme is that the characters aren't there to do "the decent thing", such as when Vin Diesel gets nailed trying to help the little girl. Letting POW Willie go is also referred to cynically by Reiben as "the decent thing", and we know how that works out for Miller. Upham executing Willie later thus feels like the moment he grows up and learns to do what needs to be done, complete with a low angle shot (representing strength) and a swelling Williams score. I think most directors would have portrayed this as a somber, dark side moment, but for Spielberg it's an audience cheer moment. Pretty ugly stuff. you make a good point, know only do the rousing score and shot structure make it seem like a triumph, but Upham is also silhouetted with white lighting almost making him seem angelic if im not mistaken.
|
|