Hopefully, we've all heard the story of Ben Affleck suggesting neat ideas for Pearl Harbor that would have made the film more intelligent and Michael Bay shooting them down saying: "Trust the box office." And Affleck finally making up T-shirts for the crew which read Trust the Box Office.

It's a love triangle and a bunch of special effects shots, 3 hours long, set to music by Hans Zimmer, and made just to make money by pandering to what the producers think is the same crowd that went to see Titanic.

Someone needs to tell this Hollywood goliath, Bay-Heime-Zimmer, that we don't need anymore of their crap. I don't care if critics tell me it's the new Citizen Kane, I absolutely refuse in advance to support this kind of shallow "Trust the Box Office" cinema anymore.

So, I'm boycotting Pearl Harbor and hope any one here with taste and sensibility and some concern about the future of the films they're being offered follows suit. What a joy it would be to watch this film bomb and lose money and make Hollywood rethink some of its philosophy of crap.

At the Cannes film fest, my favorite alternative director, Jean-Luc Godard, reminded us once again that Hollywood films are nothing but commodities (he also told the press he'd pick apart any Spielberg film if they could arrange a screening).

I'm not saying I want to replace the cinema of Pearl Harbor with that of Godard. The concerns of Euro-art films are esoteric and don't always provide entertainment, but my guess is that a dumbed down rivalry over some girl as a prologue to bombs dropping (Oh, the symbolism, get it?) isn't going to do any of us any better either.

Refuse to support this stuff by saying, I'm not standing in that line, I'm not buying that CD because they didn't hire John Barry, I'm not forking over good $$$ for a ticket to this when I can (maybe) go see something less overbaked, etc.

Sure, if they saw the films we did or saw one that they connected with they MIGHT change, but for the hard working joe-blow class that is never going to happen because they do not want to think...they want to watch things go BOOM! as a form of escapsim. Let them have it. After all it is JUST A MOVIE!

We have the art houses, the inde films, the rentals of old Kurosawa greats and Godard French classics(classic in many ways) and the "normal folk" have their films. That is the way it has always been and shall always be.

but on the other hand, BIG movies like this that will rake in upwards of about $700 million allow smaller, more intelligent films like Memento and Ravenous to be made.

Elmer Bernstein is correct when he says movies suck these days. Gads, would they ever make a long romance like From the Terrace again?

I would love to see this puppy tank.

Kross--I agree to a certain extent, that I should just people have what they want and go seek out the stuff I'll be interested in. Actually this is what I do. Most Hollywood films lack something, but I find more than enough cinema to keep me happy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kross:
Art Houses=greatness

---

Slight confusion. Do you mean that Arthouse cinema's are great (I agree), or that every film they show is great (not true)?

Personally, I won't be seeing Pearl Harbor. I have no desire to see it. I'm completely fed up with these Bruckheimer blockbusters, & attendant MV scores. I guess I've just grown out of them.

But I love a bit of escapism in my films as much as the next man. But I still don't see why a film can't provide escapism, exhiliration, etc, without being completely stupid & frequently offensive. There have been some in the past (I would argue that all of Tim Burton's films fall into this camp, then there's the likes of X-Men, Dark City, Alien(s), Blade Runner, etc.) Sure, all these films have their faults, but they do at least tend to credit their audience with something resembling intelligence. I remember working in a cinema when The Matrix was released, & listening to people comng out complaining that they couldn't understand the plot. ? I thought that the plot was far too simple & straightforward, & there wasn't enough of it. Sometimes, I dispair of the public, I really do...
But of the other films this summer, I've already seen Mummy Returns (& enjoyed the second half more than the first, like the original), & Spy Kids (go Rodriguez, go! Can't wait for Once Upon a Time in Mexico), & will definately be seeing Planet of the Apes & AI. I would also consider seeing Tomb Raider, JP3, Final Fantasy, Evolution, & a couple of others, depending on how the word seems to be going (I can easily imagine these being very bad, but they could also surprise). Although if I do, I may have to watch the Three Colours tilogy again, to make amends.

As for Pearl Harbor, it's pandering to the audience's lowest common demoninator--pretty boys in uniform for the girls, ships blowing up for the guys. It doesn't even need a story or a setting and doesn't really care.

Exploding things =/= quality drama

NO!, I won't be going to see Pearl Harbour (just as I didn't see that other tripe known as U-571).

In some cases, this may actually be the best move for the audience, but it seems doubtful to me. By telling the story exactly as it happened, Enemy at the Gates would have been a far better film than the one we got instead, and that's only one recent example.

Sometimes, telling the actual story involves elements that "the audience won't believe even though it happened that way in real life." There are lots of reasons why movies distort history.

One key problem with this is that, as Godard has been making clear in his last few films on exactly this subject, unless you're a history buff, most people's ideas of history come from the cinema's depiction of history (and the cinema has a 20-21st century concern and viewpoint before it has an interest in preserving the history of a certain period's own perspective).

So, what was the American Revolution like? Well, not having been there, I guess it was like The Patriot and Disney's Johnny Tremain. What other images come to mind as strongly? Paintings maybe, but not texts, unless you really sit down to read them and lots of 'em to get a big picture (even then there's no saying history hasn't been tampered with by the powers of the period).

I have a friend who has a very interesting take on things: Documentaries tamper with reality to support a thesis. Things based on a true story often lie. Fiction is free to talk about basics, universals, absolutes of the human condition. Fiction tells an emotional truth.

Pearl Harbor has a better chance of telling us truth about characters than it does about Dec. 7, 1941.

The title of both movies is "The Charge of the Light Brigade." The first, made in 1936 (I think), starred Erroll Flynn, David Niven and Olivia deHavilland (I think). I think you all remember the plots. The action plot revolved around an Afghan tribal leader named Surat Kahn who led a massacre of colonial and Sikh families on the Northwest Frontier of India. The romance was a love triangle consisting of the above mentioned actors. In the end, Erroll sacrifices himself and the Light Brigade in a suicidal effort to kill Surat Kahn, who is an observer with the Russians. Erroll also sacrifices himself so that his brother, played by Niven, can have the girl. This had absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened in the Crimea in 1854.

The second "The Charge of the Light Brigade," made in the late 60s or early 70s with David Hemmings and a slew of other notable English actors I can't remember right now, was a meticulous retelling of the actual events and characters that led to this historical event. There may have been an artistic liberty or two taken, but overall, it accurately told a story of bungling and the idiocy of war that this event represents ("C'est magnfique! Mais c'est pas guerre!").

I'd like to know who among you who have seen both movies can tell be which is the better entertainment?

I own both movies and have watched the first one more times than I can count. I've watched the second twice. And, if I had rented it before buying it, I wouldn't own it.