Things are always mixed


I read a comment somewhere on this board that whatever the political beliefs of the makers of this picture, it never becomes preachy, that though Collins seems foolish, Jamison is no less foolish. This is one of the things I love best about this film. Though the film does have a anti-imperialist tinge to it, Even a man like Collins is seen as a honorable man trying to do what seems best in an impossibe situation. While there is much sympathy shown for the Chinese nationalists, they are not let off the hook either, and seem as do most human beings under great stress, capable of excessive acts of violence. Oddly, pacifist Jamison is finally seen as the most foolish of all for believing in the inate goodness of man and the idea that he might use a piece of paper as a shield.

"Things are always mixed" said Sam Peckinpah, the good and bad together. I suppose I am no different. Though I detest sham patriotism, that scene where they hoist the battle flag always gives me a chill, makes me think of all the other times in history that battle flag was hoisted and all the men that died under it, as well as the values and land and people it represents. Those things do make that scene stirring, as the prelude to battle must always be. The simple fact that this will be a nasty, nearly pointless little battle do not alter the earlier feelings of excitement and pride. Not pride in being an American, but pride in the granduer and folly of the human animal. Ah Mr Peckinpah, you knew us, and yourself too well. And it destroyed you. -D. W. Bassett

reply


I just saw this again on TV. I visited the IMDB site because I couldn't really understand the point of this movie. As such, I couldn't tell if it's a good movie or not-so-good.

By "point," I mean this: usually you're able to pretty quickly place a movie's plot in a particular sort of pigeonhole. Bravery is rewarded. Evil is punished, unless the protagonist is an anti-hero, in which case it's celebrated.

But in this movie, you can't always tell--you may never be able to tell--who are the good guys and who are the bad. The movie doesn't really celebrate anything in excess; nor does it moralize over what might be considered bad actions. For me, this caused the movie to seem to wander, and, well, never get around to crystalizing so that I could sum up its "point." It is a somewhat frustrating experience, in that sense, but it also denotes a superior story.

So often I turn on a movie to be entertained, to quickly determine which character is right and which is wrong, or otherwise figure out which character to identify with, and then celebrate when that character gets "rewarded" in the end. This movie doesn't give you that; but what it gives you in return is a better spotlight on what people are capable of, what motives they may have and the reasons for them, and how varied they will react in different circumstances.

Thus I point to danawroe's post and say yeah, what he said.

reply

The chill that you experience, when the flag is raised, or the "lump in your throat," or a teary eye, when a flag is raised are all manipulations and sentimentality which we are conditioned to respond to by our upbringing. I love my country, in the sense that I hope that it will do what is right, but I know that very frequently it does not do so. The fact that other nations may commit other acts of which I don't approve does not enter the equation. Two wrongs do not a right make. Yes, the characters try to display the "grandeur and folly of the human animal." But those qualities are inseparable--in stories involving inter-national conflict--from loyalty to country. The whole point of this film (not that I think it is a great film) is that it is the loyalty to one country held by different people that causes pointless conflicts and deaths. If there were no conflicts over dominion and hegemony, these human conflicts would not exist either. Why are the Americans (and English) in China? Do they have any business being there? Why should they complain if the natives want them out? Do they have a right to complain if their presence is resented and their lives are therefore threatened? The answer of this film is clearly "no," and this point has been made much better in many other films. Oh--it is WAY too long. It plods and plods, to the point where you can't even have the patience to sit out the battle scenes. 3 hours--should have been 2.

Allen Roth
"I look up, I look down..."

reply

[deleted]


Though the film does have a anti-imperialist tinge to it...


I never interpreted it in that way. I saw it as being illustrative of the fact that some cultures just can not assimilate themselves into the modern era.


Even a man like Collins is seen as a honorable man trying to do what seems best in an impossibe situation.


Very much so. Crenna's performance was spectacular. He was the "steady rock" who always did the right thing, even if it seemed unpopular at the time. Even though he was a continual "thorn" in Holman's side, he was the one character who really stood up for him during the threatened mutiny. Crenna gave the performance of his life, portraying a character that was most grounded in realism, and the easiest to relate to. Ironic, that the character who contemplated suicide...was the one who was also the greatest "voice of reason."


Oddly, pacifist Jamison is finally seen as the most foolish of all...


Oddly? I found his character to be the epitome of the "naive fool" from his initial scene.

:o)

reply