Sunday, June 22, 2008

Connections

Man and women? Plug and socket? No…Barker, O’Brien and Coppola

The Ghost Road, written by Pat Barker, is a compelling novel that uses both fictional and real characters, as well as a gripping World War 1 and Melanesian setting to express a wide array of ideas. All of these ideas, such as the futility of war and the exploitation of the young and the working class, are also displayed in many differing texts/films – all of which achieve the portrayal of these ideas/themes in different ways. Such mediums include ‘The Things They Carried’ by Tim O’Brien, ‘Apocalypse Now’ directed by Francis Ford Coppola, ‘Jarhead’ directed by Sam Mendes and even comedic films like ‘Good Morning Vietnam’ starring Robyn Williams.

Like a lot of texts/films that have a war setting, Pat Barker produced a novel, ‘The Ghost Road’, which successfully criticizes the First World War by expressing the idea that war is futile. In the novel, the last battle scene describes a situation were Prior’s (main character) men must fight against tremendous odds in-order to capture German territory. Such are the odds that Marshal of the Ten Wounds, an absolute hero and patriotic warrior, speaks out against the upcoming battle saying that it is not worth it. In the end all of Priors men including him die. This situation is very similar in the film, ‘Apocalypse Now’, directed by Francis Coppola. A scene titled, The ‘Du Long Bridge’, is presented as a very surreal and exaggerated place. After Willard (main character) exits his boat he tries to find the commanding officer (CO). It is soon realized that there is no CO, this lack of command in a pivotal area illustrates this pointlessness of war. Furthermore, the dialogue of a character named Chief strengths this point by saying…

“We build it every night. Charlie blows it right back up again. Just so the generals can

say the road's open. Think about it. Who cares?”

These few words along with the scene of the “Du Long Bridge” are a main reason ‘Apocalypse Now’ is known to be anti-war film. The idea of the futility of war is shown in so many more films such as, ‘Jarhead’, ‘All Quiet on the Western Front’, ‘Tigerland’, ‘The Fog of War’, and one of my favorites ‘Dr. Strangelove’.

The question that must now be asked is what is the point of anti war texts? In each of the mentioned texts, one of intentions of the author/director has been to express this idea of the futility of war – thus creating an anti-war text/film. I believe that these kinds of films, and others that comment on societies possible flaws, are vital. Not only do they educate and help highlight the atrocities of war but they support and give face to many individuals that do not support war. In a sense, our society has given room for these films/texts to be created meaning that we crave them. I feel that these films/texts are key as who knows how much influence they have on the leaders of our world.

Sunday, March 9, 2008

Review: Die Hard 4.0

Nostalgia pulls the crowds and makes the money, but it doesn’t make a film good.

Die Hard 4.0 or, for you yank’s out there, Live Free or Die Hard is the 4th film featuring Bruce Willis as John McClane in yet another overrated Hollywood ‘blockbuster’. However, before I start making completely opinionated and probably outrageous comments, I like it to be known that I’m a huge Die Hard, Die Hard 2 and Die Hard with a Vengeance fan. Unfortunately, Die Hard 4.0 has let down the ball by succumbing to by-the-numbers execution as it lacks originality and acting skills by ‘not really’ bad guys, and fails to hold credibility as an even slightly believable action film.

Firstly, I would like to know why Americans get to see Live Free or Die Hard while we, meek foreigners as it seems, only get to watch Die Hard 4.0. Is this some Pro-America arrogance or is there a logical reason behind this two titled film? I sincerely hope it’s the latter!

Back to the point… Die Hard 4.0 places McClane into a world he doesn’t belong to and pitches him against anti American Americans who try to act evil and terrorist like but fail. And to top it off they had to throw in a crazy “Asian hooker bitch” with some gun-for-hire Europeans. These so called bad guys just don’t match up to Hans Gruber or his brother (or was it his cousin). I say leave John McClane where he belongs, in the 80s.

Don’t get me wrong, I was thoroughly entertained by the string of over the top and unbelievable action sequences but in the words of Peter Griffin “Come on”. You can’t place John McClane into any ol’ script and hope for the best… The McClane I knew didn’t fly helicopters or take on a F35 with a truck (True Lies anyone?). Now add in seen-that-been-done locations which truly lack any thought and you have yet another pathetic action flick. Ohh… and don’t get me started on the European “hamster”, they could have at least taken a page out of James Bond’s book and made it real instead of a computer animation.

Ahhh, that’s enough moaning…

But to be honest, I wanted this film to be great just like its prequel sum twenty years ago. I wanted it to redefine actions films forever and I wanted it to live up to its name. Unfortunately it didn’t, instead I see it as an average action movie which probably should have starred Tom Cruise instead of McClane (yes, McClane). I can only hope that Indiana Jones and Rambo don’t follow the same path as Die Hard.