I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE POINT OF THE FILM!
All these nay-sayers on this thread have seen examples (not as extreme) of cold-heartedness in life. As others have mentioned but some still don't grasp is that back then, people had lived through wars, depression, disease, etc. they were used to people dying.
My Grandmother (and great grandmother for this matter) is built like a tank for how skinny and decrepit she is, because she has been through some of the harshest times of reality there were in the United States. People weren't cold-hearted, just reserved. They were facing famine daily, that was reality to them. But some still yearned for fame i.e. Susan Sarandons character and Waldo Pepper and many others.
Tell me if Susan Sarandons character was emotionally invested in wing-walking. No, she wasn't. This story has to do with a man who is emotionally attached to the skies, and he wants the memory of him (name or image) synonymous with the skies he held so close to his heart. He is a flawed hero, who doesn't always save the damsel in distress, which in those times people were finding out that life doesn't always end happily ever after. That was the reality they were finding out in spades.
As to the logistics of whether or not she could have survived if he got on the other side and landed or over a lake blah, blah, blah, misses the effing point of the scene and one should watch the movie again and study the subtext of the period in which this movie took place, as well as their occupation.
As for Robert Redford clubbing his brother over the head so he wouldn't burn alive, i see as the exact opposite of cold-hearted. my friend once asked me to bludgen him with a bat to get out of getting mobilized to war and i couldn't do it. but i would have if he was burning to death and that's the only thing i could do to take the pain of his death away. Burning to death is probably the worst way to go if conscious. The people standing around; i have seen a crowd of people sit and watch an good man getting the S#!T beat out of him in front of his girlfriend, just for fun, cheer on even. So don't tell me these things don't happen and not truthful, live your life a little more while being observant, and then when you've matured a little more watch the movie. And remember, movies can also contain simile and metaphors before making a ridicules statement as yours, especially when you're just agreeing with a critic that is hit or miss.
It pisses me off that so many people can be such novices at life.
Waldo Pepper isn't looking for money, he wants to be a legend. in a good way, that is who he is, that is what he does. in the end he gets his blurb of who he was in aviation, thus his life is complete. warm. the opposite of cold. he was warm in a cold hearted world. i have pretty much explained the entire subtext of the entire film in this reply. IMO. i have no proof of whether this is correct, except that i love this film for what it conveyed without having to explain it as i just did to you.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
sirwax_alot
16 years ago
First of all, let me say i'm sorry if i offended in the last post. It wasn't all directed at you personally vmf-1. People who posted before you, contending the veracity of some of the films depictions OF WHICH I HAVE SEEN MANY EXAMPLES OF pissed me off. It's as if they have been living with blinders on, and then decided to watch this film.
Ok that out of the way; so you understand the times and you know why the character does what he does.
You said yourself that "times were tough and life was cheap", how do you think that made the people who were living in those times feel? Warm, fuzzy and comforted? To me, i don't understand what you and people who are like-minded complaining about. I wish i had the full article of Pauline Kael so i could de-construct it to make her sound foolish OR so i could full heartedly agree. I cannot tho, when a person says it was a 'cold-hearted' film.
The only way i would agree, is if she said "Waldo Pepper is a warm-hearted individual in a cold-hearted world, in this film." That's what i walked away from the film thinking. And i deeply identified with the character of Waldo Pepper, because he is trying to do something in his hearts desire and constantly being bombarded with technicalities that try to stand in his way. I honestly, have personal experience with this myself(as i thought a lot of the world did). To see Waldo talk with Ernst and finally prove to himself and others just the thing that he wanted all his life filled me with such elation. Not only did it tell me not to give up, it also said to me that sometimes others will not understand your passion and you will have to deal with that, they will try to stand in your way because they do not like what they do not understand, but you must find a way to do your hearts desire NO MATTER WHAT. And when you do that, you will find that the thing you have been yearning for, the thing that for a time was so far away, will come to you. It might be in a different way, but it will definitely be congruent with your hearts desire.
To me anyone who calls a work that profoundly effected me in that way 'cold-hearted' or saying 'it DOES NOT WORK within the context of the movie' are making heavily falsified statement, i am living proof of that. i'm sorry to say that you missed the point of this film, i'm sorry, but you did, Pauline Kael maybe did, a lot of you did. and that's okay, maybe your not a person who has dreams that they hold closely to their heart. that's fine. but don't make that statement about a movie that is so obviously conveys that.
IMHO, the only thing i can complain about this movie is the dummy that was on the wing as Mary Beth that was so obviously a dummy. that's the one and only flaw that ever entered my mind. this is a perfect film with it's one and only flaw.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
doravale
16 years ago
Hey, it worked for me. I'm with SirWaxaLot, or whatever his name is.
reply
share
sirwax_alot
16 years ago
Thanks doravale, i'm glad i'm getting support from other fanboys out there. BTW, did you know that Redford wore real underwear from this time period? Just kidding. I have only seen this movie two or three times and know nothing of what went into making this great masterpiece of a film. :D
Ok, which (if any) of the characters were dehumanized vmf-1? Does the popularity of a movie make the movie 'bad' or 'cold-hearted'? On the flip-side, does a popular movie make for good film to you? Was the majority of average film goers between the ages of 40 and 50 in the in 1975?
I don't know the state of the U.S. at the time of 1975, i watched it in 2005 or 2006 on TV. In order to reply to you about audiences and why they were turned off in 1975, i think i would have to look into those times a little better to give you a response. My real gripe with Pauline Kael is how people think she is this 'all-knowing, end all' to movie reviews because she works for the New Yorker and they only agree with her when it suits them. Where was the support for a movie called "Pennies from Heaven" that she loved, why wasn't that a box-office smash despite her raving review? Does that mean she's wrong about that movie? No, in my opinion, she was right about that movie, but that didn't make it a "popular movie" either. So just because it wasn't a "popular movie" does not make it a great film. AND, does not mean a film critic can be incorrect when calling a film 'cold-hearted'.
I thought it was awesome in 2005 or 2006, so maybe Goldman and Hill were visionaries! I know of a lot of films that were made in 1975 that are not shown on TV because they are so bad, obviously, this movie did something right or i wouldn't have seen it.
Please answer my questions vmf-1, i would love to hear who was dehumanized. You are obviously intelligent because you know that the "you didn't get it" phrase is the last bastion of a wounded fanboy, so please enlighten me on why i should not like this movie, call it 'cold-hearted' and why i should agree with you, Pauline Kael and the original poster of this thread? And make your points detailed instead of concise like you have been doing.
This is open for anyone else who wants to tackle this as well. Sorry, didn't mean to single you out vmf-1.
reply
share
blakjak_cc
14 years ago
I was born in 1971 & i can barely remember the 80s let alone the 70s. :P
Also, top movie, the scenes all seemed realistic, & I can personally relate to Waldo even today in 2010.
Just because it bombed at the box-office it don't mean jack, 2001: A Space Odyssey, & Raging Bull also flopped but are considered great movies. I guess it's all a matter of taste, many people liked Titanic & it killed at the box-office, but I consider that a piece of *beep* :)
reply
share
zurichpoet
14 years ago
I've seen lots of “art” films but this was the first scene in a film that ripped open the feeling of a random death of someone you truly care about.
And it's cold.
True.
I don't like saying that: William Goldman wrote this script. His ode to infamy is “Nobody knows anything”. No. Only William Goldman doesn't know anything; as I don't think he's ever really felt anything, too, beyond shades of depression when his vanity dulls in public realizing what kind of praise he attracts. Being that his work is polluted with unearned cynicism that's simply gross. Except for that scene! Glorious. In a way that just is, not good or bad. It just is. Like life.
I say that, having another friend just die earlier this year. And this one was the most healthy, he even played pro sports, the most “good”, the most talented. It was just one night. I get a call. Gone. It was like watching that scene in the film: she was there. Then: no more. Nothing, nothing, nothing. As for people not “acting” right after she died. I agree of that time, and personally I've gone through it so much, your pain tank is on E. No more fuel to cry, to get upset. You're sad. I was. Beyond the idea of sadness. But you just try to breathe. Air is, really, all that is left. All I had. That's all you can do. Breathe. And you're so disturbed, at least I was, that you're not in pain, not on your knees like before; that you even may try to laugh about it. And you do. Just to prove that you, too, are still here. You don't care if you'll upset the audience, the people around you, who if they weren't so uninvolved with the world would realize they never cared about anything in the first place. William Goldman, from what I've read, did care that he upset them, and that's how you know he does not understand a thing.
reply
share
mitcheroo
13 years ago
To compare how the writers and director made Ezra Stiles die to a run-of-the-mill urbanesque beating is almost beyond imbecility. When Americans watch this contrived death scene, their gut reaction is, "we don't act that way." The reaction is right. We do not act that way.
Often it is impossible to help someone trapped in a flaming vehicle. Ezra was not impossibly trapped. He was surrounded by (if memory serves) a crowd of rural Americans who would, by their sheer upbringing and experience, have quickly extricated Ezra from his predicament. It would have been almost routine for them (or at least for some of them) and not at all difficult--as light as aircraft must be to get off the ground, Pepper was probably able to lever that fuselage up by himself. Two men certainly could.
But none of that happens. Somehow we are supposed to believe that we, we sons and daughters of hardy settlers and pioneers, will stand idle like deer in headlights and watch someone slowly burn to death. Just toss our sensibilities and humanity and collective Christianity out the window and play along with this absurd bit of footage and feel bad about being, well, us--and by the way, please enjoy the show.
Nuts to that. Kael was right, but I think she missed something important.
This is what Hollywood thinks of us, we in the Flyover States. This is why we vote moderate or Republican. This is why Carter lost and why nationalized healthcare is having such a hard slog and why Obama will probably not win in 2012, because, deep down, we are just a bunch of hard-hearted indian-killing cold-warrior bastards who don't give a damn about the really important stuff like gay rights and electric cars and funding for the arts, or for daring men burning alive in their flying machines.
That is why Hollywood tolerates Michael Moore, and consistently votes for losers and leftists and incompetents. Because much of Hollywood does not understand the rest of America. And I think many of its low- to mid-level enablers would like to see us come to our end like Ezra Stiles--trapped, burning, and put out of their misery.
reply
share