I think they would have still fought for their country. I'm sure everyone knew they were going to almost certain death when coming out of the trenches.
High hopes, thank you for refuting what I said in a classy, intelligent manner. That's the sort of thing that makes internet discussion stimulating and interesting.B-) B-)B-)
One thing is amusing at all of this. I will agree with one thing - Casino Royale's violence was more realistic than Private Ryan. (Sorry, but people don't have gallons of blood in their body that pour out instantly when shot). Most films simply go overboard (Including ones with good intentions like Ryan) and aren't very realistic. I am not trying to agree with the critic here, just making a point. In a way I disagree with him. Much of the violence in Ryan was overdone to try to shock and was pointless because of that. I was actually impressed with the realism of Casino Royale in many aspects, not just this. For example, the fight scenes were realistic and well-done and one can tell a lot of hard work and attention to detail was put into the film and it did have a purpose and it shows in the final film.
If anything, Private Ryan had some scenes where the violence was pointless, IMO.
Well, I was just saying I appreciate the discussion being kept intelligent...and that famous opening scene in Ryan seems to have had an unfortunate legacy of making people feel they are not being shown realism if a war movie does not show them oodles and oodles of gore...it reminds me of the Hemingway story, "A Soldier's Home," in which a vet of the First World War, upon returning home, reflects on the fact that people are not interested in his stories of war if he they don't compare with some of the more extreme ones they have heard, and so he is forced to exaggerate just to hold people's interest.
I would say a movie that does it more effectively is Enemy At The Gates, where it also begins with a bloodbath...but later the fear of being sniped by a single shooter is no less. This gets to the essence of what makes war horrible and emotionally devastating. The fear of sudden death under thw worst conditions.
Please do not misconstrue me as saying that Omaha Beach was not absolutely horrible. But as for representing what everyone in the war was going through that scene is not accurate, if that is how it is taken. Also, many feel that the violence is justified because, unlike in CR, it serves more than an entertainment purpose. Bu the violence in SPR will service prurient fascinations as much as in any horror movie, just as fans of gore will collect pictures of actual decapitations and the like. Which in a way seems worse to me because war movies are meant to represent what soldiers went through. But you can't stop making it just because of those people.
I do not feel there is an inevitability about violence. Humanity will one day rise above its current state. We have evolved before, so we know it can happen. But not by avoiding the issue. Not by banning violent entertainment.
So again, I appreciate the intelligent discussion. {[]
High hopes, thank you for refuting what I said in a classy, intelligent manner. That's the sort of thing that makes internet discussion stimulating and interesting.B-) B-)B-)
{[] Thanks to you, too. I like these kinds of issues, such as the effect of mass culture on people. If I may return the compliment, your first point noting the incredible violence of eras gone was much better articulated than my own.
And I'm not really refuting you. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear a World War II vet describe the kind of violence portrayed in "Ryan" as exagerrated to a younger listener. That is if he spoke about his experiences at all. I have a feeling that for many of them, the experience was more than they could bear to recall. As a son of the World War II generation, I simply cannot imagine the kind of horrors our parents and grandparents experienced during that conflict -- and not just the soldiers either. I was watching a History Channel program about the blitz a few weeks ago. Absolutely mind-boggling, just wave after wave after wave of bombers. I'd be a drooling idiot after that.
High hopes, thank you for refuting what I said in a classy, intelligent manner. That's the sort of thing that makes internet discussion stimulating and interesting.B-) B-)B-)
{[] Thanks to you, too. I like these kinds of issues, such as the effect of mass culture on people. If I may return the compliment, your first point noting the incredible violence of eras gone was much better articulated than my own.
And I'm not really refuting you. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear a World War II vet describe the kind of violence portrayed in "Ryan" as exagerrated to a younger listener. That is if he spoke about his experiences at all. I have a feeling that for many of them, the experience was more than they could bear to recall. As a son of the World War II generation, I simply cannot imagine the kind of horrors our parents and grandparents experienced during that conflict -- and not just the soldiers either. I was watching a History Channel program about the blitz a few weeks ago. Absolutely mind-boggling, just wave after wave after wave of bombers. I'd be a drooling idiot after that.
Your post kinda re-enforces what I was saying. Real violence is so much worse because in films our mind doesn't make the same connection (Usually, unless it is extremely well-filmed). We realize it as a film and it doesn;t have the same effect. That is why the arguement that film violence can be linked to real violence is silly, IMO. I admit, while I found it overdone,. perhaps that was the purpose behind the exagerrate dviolence in "Ryan", to make a connection that may not have been made with many people had it been toned-down.
High hopes, thank you for refuting what I said in a classy, intelligent manner. That's the sort of thing that makes internet discussion stimulating and interesting.B-) B-)B-)
{[] Thanks to you, too. I like these kinds of issues, such as the effect of mass culture on people. If I may return the compliment, your first point noting the incredible violence of eras gone was much better articulated than my own.
And I'm not really refuting you. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear a World War II vet describe the kind of violence portrayed in "Ryan" as exagerrated to a younger listener. That is if he spoke about his experiences at all. I have a feeling that for many of them, the experience was more than they could bear to recall. As a son of the World War II generation, I simply cannot imagine the kind of horrors our parents and grandparents experienced during that conflict -- and not just the soldiers either. I was watching a History Channel program about the blitz a few weeks ago. Absolutely mind-boggling, just wave after wave after wave of bombers. I'd be a drooling idiot after that.
Your post kinda re-enforces what I was saying. Real violence is so much worse because in films our mind doesn't make the same connection (Usually, unless it is extremely well-filmed). We realize it as a film and it doesn;t have the same effect. That is why the arguement that film violence can be linked to real violence is silly, IMO. I admit, while I found it overdone,. perhaps that was the purpose behind the exagerrate dviolence in "Ryan", to make a connection that may not have been made with many people had it been toned-down.
I think a lot of the "overdone" quality that you sensed in the Ryan movie derived not so much from the images themselves -- although they are certainly horrific at times -- but the camera work, which is very jagged and meant to have a documentary, combat cameraman feel. It's quite disorienting, although I would imagine the real thing would be, too. And the sound track with the whistling bullets. That probably got me most of all.
But you are certainly correct. I think Mr.Gettner's thesis is really a tired old cliche that was debunk long ago.
I seem to remember in TLD when accused of missing deliberately because it was a woman, he says it was because he does not shoot at non-professionals. So her being a woman wasn't the reason.
I seem to remember in TLD when accused of missing deliberately because it was a woman, he says it was because he does not shoot at non-professionals. So her being a woman wasn't the reason.
That's true. And Dalton made it a point to make that line serious. If it really was due to her being a female he would have smirked as he said it. I must say that even if you don't like his Bond, Dalton is just a fine actor in every part of his two films.
If anything, Private Ryan had some scenes where the violence was pointless, IMO.
Except one could argue that war is pointless.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
If anything, Private Ryan had some scenes where the violence was pointless, IMO.
Except one could argue that war is pointless.
I disagree with both points here.
Without getting too deeply into politics, IMO none of the violence in SPR was pointless---and it's nearly impossible to exaggerate the violence of a conflict where millions died.
And the war from '39 to '45 was far from pointless: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were a threat to the entire world, and had to be dealt with.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
And the war from '39 to '45 was far from pointless: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were a threat to the entire world, and had to be dealt with.
I'm debating as to wether or not I should write this as one of the reasons I enjoy coming to this site is that it's politics-free. (As someone who reads three newspapers a day, I get enough politics. ) I also don't want to offend anyone. Therefore I will simply make a quick statement and I'll only go into depth if asked.
I do believe WW 2 was necessary, however I do not believe that the original justification was. That is to say, that while as a Jew, I am eternally thankful for the way WW 2 ended, I am less than pleased with the reasons why many of the allied nations entered the war.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
More that it didn't really have anything to do with The Holocaust.
I actually won't say anything more on this subject. If someone is interested in my thoughts about WW 2, please PM me. I will be happy to go into detail. However, I would prefer to keep the focus of this thread on cinematic violence in general and Bond in particular. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm dodging giving a detailed answer or that I'm trying to be provocative. I'm doing neither. I'm simply realising that since we all come from different backgrounds with our common denominator being a love of Bond and cinema, perhaps we should focus on Bond and cinema.
On the issue of Bond and violence, I find that the films which have the most impact on me in terms of violence are films featuring personal violence such as Schindler's List. I have seen only SL once and I am unable to see it again due to the personal nature of it.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I actually won't say anything more on this subject. If someone is interested in my thoughts about WW 2, please PM me. I will be happy to go into detail. However, I would prefer to keep the focus of this thread on cinematic violence in general and Bond in particular. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm dodging giving a detailed answer or that I'm trying to be provocative. I'm doing neither. I'm simply realising that since we all come from different backgrounds with our common denominator being a love of Bond and cinema, perhaps we should focus on Bond and cinema.
Indeed, debate on these sort of subjects are necessary and healthy. I think as you say they should be kept for the appropriate sites/times though.
On the issue of Bond and violence, I find that the films which have the most impact on me in terms of violence are films featuring personal violence such as Schindler's List. I have seen only SL once and I am unable to see it again due to the personal nature of it.
I think that film is just so good it has an impact on everybody, as somebody else mentioned on another post, when they saw it in the theatre, men were coming out crying.
LoeffelholzThe United States, With LovePosts: 8,998Quartermasters
edited December 2006
Best not to just toss out a 'war is pointless' comment then, really...
Let it be noted for the record that I never start political conversations here---ever. But some statements cannot stand unremarked-upon.
I've said my peace, and I'm done now.
Check out my Amazon author page!Mark Loeffelholz
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
Best not to just toss out a 'war is pointless' comment then, really...
Let it be noted for the record that I never start political conversations here---ever. But some statements cannot stand unremarked-upon.
I've said my peace, and I'm done now.
Well, I didn't just toss it out. But you're right, I probably shouldn't have started this discussion in the first place. My apologies.
"He’s a man way out there in the blue, riding on a smile and a shoeshine. And when they start not smiling back—that’s an earthquake. and then you get yourself a couple of spots on your hat, and you’re finished. Nobody dast blame this man. A salesman is got to dream, boy. It comes with the territory." Death of a Salesman
I watched a documentary on the US ratings system the other night called, 'This Film is Not Yet Rated.' There was a clip of DAD, when Bond is using the virtual reality machine and shooting his way through a building. The gist of the argument was that the MPAA seems to have no problem with violence, but will slap an R rating on anything involving scenes of a sexual nature. It was interesting to see how the MPAA works, or rather tries to make it difficult for outsiders to see how they work.
What I found ironic was that although Kirby Dick, the guy who made the documentary is avowedly liberal, he uses exactly the same techniques as the conservative newspaper, The Daily Mail, has done in the UK when it wants the British Board of Film Classification to ban something. That is to find out the identities of those working for the board and make them public. Although both are approaching the topic from a different angle their methods are the same and in both cases pretty reprehensible.
Comments
If anything, Private Ryan had some scenes where the violence was pointless, IMO.
I would say a movie that does it more effectively is Enemy At The Gates, where it also begins with a bloodbath...but later the fear of being sniped by a single shooter is no less. This gets to the essence of what makes war horrible and emotionally devastating. The fear of sudden death under thw worst conditions.
Please do not misconstrue me as saying that Omaha Beach was not absolutely horrible. But as for representing what everyone in the war was going through that scene is not accurate, if that is how it is taken. Also, many feel that the violence is justified because, unlike in CR, it serves more than an entertainment purpose. Bu the violence in SPR will service prurient fascinations as much as in any horror movie, just as fans of gore will collect pictures of actual decapitations and the like. Which in a way seems worse to me because war movies are meant to represent what soldiers went through. But you can't stop making it just because of those people.
I do not feel there is an inevitability about violence. Humanity will one day rise above its current state. We have evolved before, so we know it can happen. But not by avoiding the issue. Not by banning violent entertainment.
So again, I appreciate the intelligent discussion. {[]
{[] Thanks to you, too. I like these kinds of issues, such as the effect of mass culture on people. If I may return the compliment, your first point noting the incredible violence of eras gone was much better articulated than my own.
And I'm not really refuting you. In fact, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to hear a World War II vet describe the kind of violence portrayed in "Ryan" as exagerrated to a younger listener. That is if he spoke about his experiences at all. I have a feeling that for many of them, the experience was more than they could bear to recall. As a son of the World War II generation, I simply cannot imagine the kind of horrors our parents and grandparents experienced during that conflict -- and not just the soldiers either. I was watching a History Channel program about the blitz a few weeks ago. Absolutely mind-boggling, just wave after wave after wave of bombers. I'd be a drooling idiot after that.
Your post kinda re-enforces what I was saying. Real violence is so much worse because in films our mind doesn't make the same connection (Usually, unless it is extremely well-filmed). We realize it as a film and it doesn;t have the same effect. That is why the arguement that film violence can be linked to real violence is silly, IMO. I admit, while I found it overdone,. perhaps that was the purpose behind the exagerrate dviolence in "Ryan", to make a connection that may not have been made with many people had it been toned-down.
I think a lot of the "overdone" quality that you sensed in the Ryan movie derived not so much from the images themselves -- although they are certainly horrific at times -- but the camera work, which is very jagged and meant to have a documentary, combat cameraman feel. It's quite disorienting, although I would imagine the real thing would be, too. And the sound track with the whistling bullets. That probably got me most of all.
But you are certainly correct. I think Mr.Gettner's thesis is really a tired old cliche that was debunk long ago.
That's true. And Dalton made it a point to make that line serious. If it really was due to her being a female he would have smirked as he said it. I must say that even if you don't like his Bond, Dalton is just a fine actor in every part of his two films.
I disagree with both points here.
Without getting too deeply into politics, IMO none of the violence in SPR was pointless---and it's nearly impossible to exaggerate the violence of a conflict where millions died.
And the war from '39 to '45 was far from pointless: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were a threat to the entire world, and had to be dealt with.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM
I do believe WW 2 was necessary, however I do not believe that the original justification was. That is to say, that while as a Jew, I am eternally thankful for the way WW 2 ended, I am less than pleased with the reasons why many of the allied nations entered the war.
I actually won't say anything more on this subject. If someone is interested in my thoughts about WW 2, please PM me. I will be happy to go into detail. However, I would prefer to keep the focus of this thread on cinematic violence in general and Bond in particular. I hope it doesn't appear that I'm dodging giving a detailed answer or that I'm trying to be provocative. I'm doing neither. I'm simply realising that since we all come from different backgrounds with our common denominator being a love of Bond and cinema, perhaps we should focus on Bond and cinema.
On the issue of Bond and violence, I find that the films which have the most impact on me in terms of violence are films featuring personal violence such as Schindler's List. I have seen only SL once and I am unable to see it again due to the personal nature of it.
Indeed, debate on these sort of subjects are necessary and healthy. I think as you say they should be kept for the appropriate sites/times though.
I think that film is just so good it has an impact on everybody, as somebody else mentioned on another post, when they saw it in the theatre, men were coming out crying.
Let it be noted for the record that I never start political conversations here---ever. But some statements cannot stand unremarked-upon.
I've said my peace, and I'm done now.
"I am not an entrant in the Shakespeare Stakes." - Ian Fleming
"Screw 'em." - Daniel Craig, The Best James Bond EverTM