|
DeimosRising posted:I Get what you're saying and an adventure movie set in ww1 that doesn't touch on industrialized death is fine. Everyone likes Lawrence of Arabia. But theres a reason Gallipoli doesn't have the same tone. The disconnect is both doing that lighter adventure AND setting scenes in the trenches. Raiders (besides not being set during ww2 at all) doesn't have a subplot about Indy going to Stalingrad Have you seen Lawrence of Arabia? A central part of that movie deals with the main character essentially being reduced to a murderous wreck by his experiences (amd what he thinks is his true nature - the comment about enjoying killing a man).
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 19:40
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 7, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
DeimosRising posted:Yeah it's not the best example but it doesn't touch on the industrial nature of the European war at all. Compare how the battles are shot in Lawrence to the misty dreamscapes of the Eastern Front in Dr. Zhivago. But a better example would be The African Queen or Secret Agent, maybe. Not that they're light hearted but they do rousing adventure and just avoid the mechanized hell-scape of the front entirely. Well, touching on the European war wasn't the goal of that movie at all. I don't really agree with the sentiment that you have to have a movie set during WW1 be dour and miserable, I would say it depends on what the goal of the movie is and if the movie works then it's usually okay. I mean take Kelly's Heroes that's a light hearted heist movie set in the Normandy during WWII, and that movie's tone works really well despite the Norman campaign being one of the more brutal ones of the war (casualty rates were higher than many eastern front campaigns for instance, and the allies suffered a very high rate of 'psychiatric casualties' as they called it back then). That said I have no real interest in seeing in this movie and just checked in out of curiosity (is it out? is it bad?) and saw someone mentioning Lawrence of Arabia.
|
|
#
¿
May 28, 2017 21:31
|
|