Let's see if it makes money.

--Brian

Considering the story, I can't see how Powell's score will be anything but atmospherics or OTT "Adagio For Strings"-type. This isn't AIR FORCE ONE, after all.

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
"should be fun." Sorry, but I don't think it will be fun. I watched the trailer yesterday. Since it is a true story, I think it will be painful and heart-wrenching.

---

I have seen two good things on this already. The documentary on TV and something else on TV on it. Both were great.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Greengrass used only source music in his wonderful [b]Bloody Sunday. Even though the earlier film was a much better documented re-enactment (and so suited the impression of realism), I hope he keeps a tight rein on the use of music here, as it can only underline things that are already evident.[/B]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mike Skerritt:
I hope he and Powell go for an approach like that, for the reasons you so eloquently stated, Franz.

---

Heeeeyyyy... I'm ELOQUENT.

quote:

---

Originally posted by franz_conrad:
Heeeeyyyy... I'm ELOQUENT.

Seriously though, I've avoided watching the trailer, as I'd rather just have a great film experience here without trailers, much like Greengrass's last two films were.[/B]

---

Caca doody poo. There.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John C Winfrey:
Actually this is what makes the world go round: different tastes. For Joan and I we are into history more than some of the younger ones here and I prefer serious films to the comedies. I rarely see one of them. So its a matter of taste and choice and none is better than anyone elses. J.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by John C Winfrey:
For Joan and I we are into history more than some of the younger ones here and I prefer serious films to the comedies.

---

Oh, please. What a sweeping statement. Of course, I'm far younger than you, but I'm into history in a big way (it's my primary focus of study at university) ... I just don't need "history" from a film. I will go to this film and laugh, garaunteed—I'm there for the rollercoaster, not the "lessons" or "lectures" or "messages." Or even to fool myself into thinking what I'm seeing is real: it's just a bunch of grown-ups beings kids = putting on costumes and running around a plane, pretending terrorists have taken over.

NP: Jaws 2 (John Williams) *****/*****

quote:

---

Originally posted by joan hue:
Knowing their sacrifices may make this movie too unbearable for me to watch because the REAL situation was NEVER funny.

---

Older historical events like those depicted in Schindler's List and Glory don't operate in exactly the same way, but people still tend to give them a lot of leeway because of the "true story" claim. Some films don't need that leeway, others don't deserve it (I would include Glory and Titanic in the latter category, though both films have some redeeming facets). In some cases I think laughing at these films is okay, not because the events they depict aren't tragic, but because the way they are depicted may be cheesy, obvious, over-the-top, etc.

Which, I reiterate, does not mean I subscribe to Sean's view of little kids playing dress-up. But I think you've seen me in enough film discussions on this board to know that.

Here begins rambling....

I would also like to add that humor is by no means a taboo method of dealing with tragedy. Two examples that race to my mind are Repentance and Brigands, Chapter VII which both deal with Stalin's atrocities in a humorous, satirical way. Some people really liked Roberto Bengini's Life is Beautiful. We'll never know how the world would have responded to Jerry Lewis's The Day the Clown Cried.

Tears and laughter are not just automatic responses to emotional information but at their basic level are actually just different ways our bodies (usually involuntarily) release tension. I can actually think of moments in my life when I have received terrible news and my first impulse was to laugh, not because what I had heard was funny, but because something in my brain said, "Oops, too much stress to think, need to get rid of that quick."

Last word goes to John Cleese:

quote:

---

No subject is ever too serious for humor. I think many people have a basic misunderstanding: There's a difference between being serious and being solemn. We could be talking about things that are extremely serious – our marriages, the education of our children, politics, even the meaning of life - and laughing quite a lot and that wouldn't make what we were talking about one bit less serious. But solemnity, on the other hand; I don't know what it's for. Solemnity serves pomposity, self-importance, and egotism. And the pompous and the self-important always know at some level that their egotism is going to be punctured by humour. That's why they always see humour as negative, as a threat to them personally. And so they dishonestly criticize it as frivolous and light-minded.

---

Kirk

I love movies that make me hurt the way the subject matter should make me hurt. Whether that's achieved by humour or solemnity doesn't matter so much for me... I can't stand the air of self-conscious earnestness - of deliberate importance - in a film though. (For this reason, I find Crash something that I laugh at - it's all just too convenient that those stories come together to make exactly the point it's makers said they wanted to make at the beginning of the film.)

So Sean is a history student? Let's hope he learned, for those who fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it...