Steven Broomfield Posted 22 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 December , 2011 We live in the age of the autodidact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEd Posted 22 December , 2011 Share Posted 22 December , 2011 They filmed some of the scenes for war horse near me, i went up and watched a few times, i wasnt allowed that close expecially when i turned up with a telephoto lens (got asked to leave) but from what i saw then it looked good, i am going to see it. You have to take films made by hollywood with a pinch of salt. If they made everything perfectly historical to appeal to use 'experts' and 'enthusiasts' then they wouldnt make a load of money, they have to make something that will appeal to the wider audience, and some artistic licence is needed for that. As far as im concerned, if some kids/younger people go to see it and it sparks an interest in The Great War, and they then go and research their family or visit a museum, or just have some kind of understanding then i would say its worthwhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 22 December , 2011 Share Posted 22 December , 2011 We live in the age of the autodidact. The manual ones are real rubbish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 23 December , 2011 Share Posted 23 December , 2011 Reluctant though I am to put any film by Steven Spielberg under the heading of "Culture", I felt this article in today's Tottygraph worthy of note: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/film-news/8917541/Spielberg-unveils-new-War-Horse-film-as-Oscars-buzz-grows.html I have yet to see a Speilberg movie that left me with anything but distaste: ET was mawkish claptrap, Close Encounters a befuddled fairy tale. Saving Private Ryan was so-so up to the last reel, at which point it descended into pure schmaltz, and Schindler's List was the worst kind of emotional string-pulling. Now, I have never read War Horse, nor have I seen the play, so I am unqualified to comment on the primary source for this film, but I have to say that history would seem to indicate a wallow in the saccharine to the nth degree. I have no idea if I'll go to see this film, but I suspect as an historical record it will beat Downton Abbey into a cocked-hat for anorak-itis. Just don't have a large meal before you go would be my advice. I'm with you. I despise Spielberg. The only good war movie he made was Empire of the Sun, which he has essentially disavowed because so much of it was morally ambiguous and because he used J. G. Ballard's novel as the script. It may be the most faithful film adaption of a novel ever made. The actor Crispin Glover says that Spielberg simulates taking risks. I agree. I find that his movies simulate emotion with overwrought schmaltz. I much prefer the elegant approach of A Very Long Engagement, which presumed an intelligence and artistic appreciation in the audience that Spielberg feels we don't have. I won't see War Horse. I hated Saving Private Ryan, which had superb special effects but left me utterly cold as a story about humans. I also hated Schindler's List because of the ghastly ending--not the color images of the old folks marching toward the camera, but the speechifying and grovelling that Liam Neeson did before he drove away. The real Oskar Schindler never explained his motives. That level of ambiguity would've made the movie a masterpiece, but Spielberg has to spell everything out for us and reduce everything to a child's understanding. We don't need any more war movies that tell us how horrible war is. Spielberg once knew that, as exemplified by the scene in Empire of the Sun of the P-51 Mustangs strafing the camp. Incredible beauty and horror all at once, without some grim schlub of an actor lecturing us on how war is bad and makes him sad and mad. Things should be allowed to speak for themselves. The cartoonish level of manipulation isn't necessary. Or it wasn't, years ago. The scene in The Best Years of Our Lives, in which the double amputee, Homer, finally reveals his stumps to his girlfriend in an effort to drive her away, but she tells him she doesn't care and still wants to marry him? One of the most powerful moments in cinematic history. Devastating in its simplicity. I'm tired of epics and yelling. I want stories about people. Is that so hard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 23 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 23 December , 2011 I'm with you. I despise Spielberg. I'm tired of epics and yelling. I want stories about people. Is that so hard? Hear, hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 23 December , 2011 Share Posted 23 December , 2011 Hear, hear. On YouTube now, the ads for War Horse describe it as an "epic journey by Steven Spielberg." To me, that's like inviting me to a "sumptuous banquet by McDonald's." He can no longer direct scenes like this one, which although packed to the gills with action are all about people, border on the surreal, and haunt you afterward. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil andrade Posted 23 December , 2011 Share Posted 23 December , 2011 Being a silly sentimental old jerk I am really looking forward to it. Time to shed the anorak and enjoy myself with all the other fools. Phil (PJA) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim P Posted 25 December , 2011 Share Posted 25 December , 2011 Well I find spielbergs films watchable. As for being smaltzy...... well KFC is too salty for me but they havent gone out of business. people buy the colonels buckets of joy in their millions. taste is personal. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but to arbitrarily trash an effort to make a ww1 themed (based, whatever) film on a ww1 forum before it has even come out suggests to me that there are maybe a few people who are too picky for their own good. Sorry.. Like a 21 stone football fanatic who berates his team for missing a penalty. I m looking forward to it and I will accept that it needs to be hollywooded in order to draw in the mainstream. like street noise I will drown out what I don't find so palatable and revel in the spectacle and the sentiment of the film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 26 December , 2011 Share Posted 26 December , 2011 Well said ,though Spielberg may not to be to everyones taste ,and i will admit that i find Close Encounters daft ,and ET at my age is just not my cup of tea ,i can still rember when seeing Jaws for the first time when released on the big screen ,great film ,and its better than the book ! ,1941 excellent with a stunning Jitterbug scene ,up there in the top 3 jitterbug scenes ever filmed with Hellsapoppin and the Marx Brothers ,Saving Private Ryan yes its a remake of the Mitcham film ,with bits of Walk in the Sun ,but great detail and being a WW2 buff so many good bits to see ,and yes hanks unit were put ashore on D Day by the RN but i can live with that , and the getto scene in Shindlers list is stunning ,i recommend someone reading the Polish book produced when filming was on going befor lambasting its facts . And yes the man keeps on remaking the Searchers ,but hey thats not so bad ,and rember Empire of theSun did not win to much aclaim at the time but ,its a movie i will watch again and again ,and the Mustang attack still thrills ,so when War Horse is released in Version Orginal here in France i will be in line and enjoy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 26 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 26 December , 2011 Everyone is entitled to an opinion but to arbitrarily trash an effort to make a ww1 themed (based, whatever) film on a ww1 forum before it has even come out suggests to me that there are maybe a few people who are too picky for their own good. Sorry.. Like a 21 stone football fanatic who berates his team for missing a penalty. Quite agree: everyone is entitled to an opinion. Mine is that Speilberg's movies are not to my taste, for all the reasons put forward (and mush more eloquently by others). I just dislike sitting through loud, shouty films which assault my ear drums as much as my intellect. If that is, as has been mooted, intellectual snobbery, then I am happy to stand guilty as charged. I assume that a porn film set in the Great War would be OK with you? To me, Spielberg's films are a kind of port, but as you say, others like it. I have also never been compared to a 21 stone football supporter. For what it's worth, I never berate my team for anything: at least they put in the effort and are true to themselves - but then maybe that's the difference between being content with a team which knocks around the lower leagues (and currently the BSB Premier League) rather than going to watch the over-paid prima donnas in the Barclay's Premier. Indeed, the analogy is apt: I dislike the Premier league as much as I dislike Spielberg, and for all the same reasons (brash, loud, loaded with money and soulless). Maybe your comment on 21 stone football supporters was a better one than I thought. Maybe I'm too ascetic for my own good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanA Posted 26 December , 2011 Share Posted 26 December , 2011 Spielberg's films are a kind of port I'll drink to that... :w00t: Nobody ever lost a dollar by underestimating the taste of the American public. I think we may extend that to the British too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 26 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 26 December , 2011 Erratum: for port, read porn throughout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 26 December , 2011 Share Posted 26 December , 2011 Maybe I'm too ascetic for my own good. I can't bear the radio and TV Ads for this movie. My intention to not see the film is based entirely on what I've seen, heard, and read. There's an independent filmmaker named Mike Stoklasa who's created a fake movie critic character named Harry S. Plinkett who's done an hour-long dissection of the last Indiana Jones movie. The review, in the form of two online videos at http://redlettermedia.com, is shockingly profane, and many here would find it far too offensive to watch. But his actual points on what makes Spielberg's work so awful are spot on. Stoklasa says that now that Spielberg is a grandfather, he's feeling guilty about the much darker, harder-edged work he did in the past (Jaws, Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, etc.), so the latest Indiana Jones foray is a movie made by a grandfather for his grandkids. It has cute little prairie dogs, a plot that makes no sense on any level, actors mugging for the camera like cartoon characters, and scenes of incredible violence in which nobody gets hurt. The main characters are indestructible. Jones kills only one person, when in the past he wracked up double-digit scores of victims. Spielberg is just not the sort of director I would trust to tell a fitting, appropriate story about World War I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martinb Posted 26 December , 2011 Share Posted 26 December , 2011 The National Army Museum current have an exhibition based on "War Horse" exploring fact and fiction. It's well worth a visit if you are in the Chelsea area and is open until August 2012 http://www.nam.ac.uk/microsites/war-horse/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest azyeoman Posted 26 December , 2011 Share Posted 26 December , 2011 It's amazing how opinionated some people are; they feel they know everything about history, film and culture. Some are truly as boring if not more so than the film(s) and directors they're trying criticize; especially in light of the fact that they have not read the book or seen the film etc. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterhogg Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 To me, it is axiomatic. I won't condemn the film until I have actually seen it, a subversive approach to some, from what I gather. I live in a state of self-enforced ignorance of matters of buttons, insignia, webbing and slings, so i will be sheltered from any "howlers" in that regard. (Course, if the title is a dead give-away, it's doesn't sound like the film promises to focus on the dramatic and the fascinating development of British Army insignia, and medal stripes, 1914-18) I'm not a fan of Spielberg across the board, and I agree with some of the criticism above of such films I did really enjoy, such as SPR and Schindler. In the case of the latter, I agree the ending was designed to pull at the heartstrings. He and John Williams do tend to use a hammer, when a lighter touch would suffice. Having said that, he certainly did not shrink away from nor sanitize necessary depictions of the horrors of that war in both films. His sentimental side does not always dominate. Fundamentally most films aspire , indeed often must aspire, to both the artistic and the commercial, in some way. And this is after all, largely about entertainment and telling a story. I accept that, and as I am not being compelled to see the thing, I know that from the beginning--caveat viewer etc.. I don't begrudge those that disagree nor their criticisms. they might have a little more weight if they were actually based upon seeing the film. i would have thought that to be rather basic, but that's just me. And, there is a whiff of anti-Americanism in some of these posts that by now has become so stale-dated and dreary as to be best put to rest. Get it's coat, send it home. The British film industry is vibrant and creative, so, go to it. Make a Great War film that is true to art and excruciating in its attention to detail while still offering a ripping good yarn. Good luck..... You have a film taking place in the Great War. there will likely be a lot of booms, mud and poignancy, etc... Plus a horse, I think. Sure beats a another Mike Leigh depress-fest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShirlD Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 (whispers) we are going to see the film tonight with 2 granddaughters, including Hannah who introduced me to the book 3 or 4 years ago Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom W. Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 It's amazing how opinionated some people are; they feel they know everything about history, film and culture. Some are truly as boring if not more so than the film(s) and directors they're trying criticize; especially in light of the fact that they have not read the book or seen the film etc. etc. Yes, opinions are BAD! We mustn't JUDGE! We mustn't take into account our past experiences with directors; we mustn't believe our own eyes and ears; and we must smile and nod gently when we're told something is GREAT! Because to disagree is double-plus UNGOOD! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grantowi Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 so the latest Indiana Jones foray is a movie made by a grandfather for his grandkids. It has cute little prairie dogs, a plot that makes no sense on any level, actors mugging for the camera like cartoon characters, and scenes of incredible violence in which nobody gets hurt. The main characters are indestructible. Jones kills only one person, when in the past he wracked up double-digit scores of victims. But by doing all of the above, the film can be watched by younger children ( and it IS a childrens film ) and bring in more profit for the makers. If you want to see films about people being killed then go to watch adult films Spielberg is just not the sort of director I would trust to tell a fitting, appropriate story about World War I. War Horse isn't about WW1 - its about a horse and its keeper - just happens to be set in WW1 Grant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 Befor you go all 1984, see the movie , the sides of this conflict are Speilberg is a rubbish director who makes rubbish films ,well he may do in your opinion but you seem to have seen them all ? no issues with any one critising his work ,thats part of life ,Speilberg has made a couple of turkeys ,for one i love 1941 but its not to all peoples taste ,a few bits of Ryan are maudling as with Schindler ,but how many films are brilliant all the way through ? Have been an avid movie fan from the 60s onwards and consider my self a film buff but with cathaloic tastes ,from Isenstein through to Con Air ,and i will go to War Horse and then make up my own mind ,and i will look at the uniforms and do my well thats not right ect because thats what we do ? And i will go on to the Mrs and say well thats another scene from Horse soldiers ,Searchers ect ,but i do understand that what i am watching is a fairy tale whos back ground is the Great War , and i am adult enough to realise its not West Front ,All Quite , or the Big Parade my personal opinion is that for the Great war the bench mark is still Kubricks Paths of Glory ,and that perhaps Speilberg is not the director to do justice to the war ? but then today who is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterhogg Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 i am adult enough to realise its not West Front ,All Quite , or the Big Parade my personal opinion is that for the Great war the bench mark is still Kubricks Paths of Glory ,and that perhaps Speilberg is not the director to do justice to the war ? but then today who is ? Now that is a great question. I'd have to think on that. I wonder how Terence Mallick might create such a film? . Interesting question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sweeney Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 I saw the movie--it was very good not great but my wife would debate this point. What was really suprising was the very apparant attempt to get things right as far as uniforms etc. (my area of interest) down to TF Proficiency Stars, Cross hatched chevrons (Seems that was a recent topic of discussion). There were quite a few odd (WTF) moments in regards to the Great War in general, e.g. the Somme in 1918 that looked more to be inspired by Passchendaele at its worst with mud. The rate of those odd moments in the movie probably not exceeding the odd inputs seen on this forum. I would say go as best seen on big screen. Joe Sweeney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exuser1 Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 as you say who ? well thinking again ,and i did enjoy Ride With The Devil , and the issue may be it would be from the American perspective but how about Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Broomfield Posted 27 December , 2011 Author Share Posted 27 December , 2011 Fpr what it's worth, I fully intend to go to see the film (it can't possiblu be worse than Titanic, can it?), and I am going to the exhibition at the NAM on Saturday, with my elder daughter. (That will be an opportunity to see if they've corrected the mistakes I noticed on our last visit - The Honourable Lieutenant Fred Roberts, indeed ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph0ebus Posted 27 December , 2011 Share Posted 27 December , 2011 Fpr what it's worth, I fully intend to go to see the film (it can't possiblu be worse than Titanic, can it?), What, that insufferable, 11-hour, smarmy love story interrupted by some boating mishap? -Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now