Some of the scenes were accompanied by such awful and inappropriate modern music. Not at all suited to a WW II movie.
Why do directors or music directors or whoever is responsible for this, so seldom seem to have a sense of what enhances the historical feel of a movie and what utterly breaks the mood?
Actually the music was astonishingly great as of a choice - it was provocative and unusual, which made the movie exceptionally different and haunting.
shareIt's a personal choice and appreciation of course. But modern rock during a WWII movie? Please, spare me.
Peaky Binders, a British series set in 1920 also went this way and ruined the whole series. Just like Warsaw '44 there were good believable locations, clothing and all that. But then the whole historical feel of the movie is suddenly jerked into the 21st century or the 1990s and all the suspension of disbelief necessary to appreciate a historical movie or series just evaporates into a cacophony of harsh electrical sounds.
Such a waste.
Couldn't disagree more. Why? Because it's 2015. WWII pieces have been produced as in a freaking factory throughout the last 70 years and boy, did it become a cliche hardly anybody expects any gimmicks to "suspend the disbelief necessary to appreciate a historical movie or series". Probably that's why I can't imagine people whining about popular music ost used in period movies ever since Jesus Christ Superstar, Romeo and Juliet, Moulin Rouge, Great Gatsby, Marie Antoinette, 300, Clash of Titans, Inglorious Basterds, Django, Peaky Blinders (which was awesome btw) and yeah Warsaw 44. Times change, aesthetics either, catch up or drop the mic and leave, I'd say.
shareWhen historical movies are made, the idea is to recreate the period to the best of the producers ability, to get details correct like the uniforms, weapons, hairstyles, cars, buildings and so on.
So let's say we give characters in a WWII movie a purple punk haircut, pierce their nose and lips, let them drive 911 Porches, shoot AK-47s and so on ... you get the idea.
Reviewers and discussion boards would be alight with people pointing out the horrible historical inconsistencies. There are some who go to great lengths to check the correctness of historical pieces.
And that is all correctly so. What is the use of making a historical film if you're going to be sloppy about it?
And, this is my strongly felt opinion, one of the most important features of a movie besides the strictly visual, is the musical score. It cannot be blocked out or ignored. It should adhere just as much to historical parameters as any other aspect of a historical movie. So, modern rock therefore has no place at all in a WWII movie. It ruins everything. And moreover in the future, using that kind of music will be seen as nothing more than a trick someone tried to pull off but which failed miserably.
Actually you'd be surprised how people get sloppy with time not even minding any intentionally postmodern (like in WARSAW 44) or even performed by mistake blend of different styles. As time goes by and years pass if anybody sees the movie in 10-15 years electronic music would seem ancient and closer to WWII than ever, I guess.
I guess not only true and knowing filmgoers can appreciate the effort and bravery behind this type of approach towards making not an artsy fartsy film but a real superbudget epic which is even more crazy and rare.
As far as I'm interested in historical matters this movie follows the facts pretty well. It only uses the very specific and thought-provoking interpretation of facts which may seem awkward and too out of the box to some. I loved it and that's what I'm looking for as a viewer. If I need bare factual material I'd rather pursue a good book on the subject or a documentary, even though these might be flawed, rather than watching a feature film. There's always a director behind it. And he or she shouldn't (and it's impossible for him to) behave like a freaking observer or stiff as a tripod even. His job is to take facts and put them through himself in order to deliver his vision. With some it's more surreal or shocking with others less but with features it's always a conception and it usually is stronger than with documentaries showing actual events.
So I don't agree with your point of view and I find it pretty peculiar. There's no rules in art but one - stay true to your vision when showing it off to others. You can't require directors to just "recreate the period to the best" - it's just a very narrow view or just one side of a coin. If directors and producers would follow your rules not only movies like Apocalypse Now, Inglorious Basterds, Life is Beautiful, Romeo + Juliet, 300, Clash of Titans, Noah, Django, Great Gatsby (period movie with hip-hop songs), Marie Antoinette (period movie with rock songs in it - check it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeDir90Nd7Q ) but many many more great ones would have never been produced.
It's not a trick "someone tried to pull off" but film, as any other art form, has an inalienable right to brake rules to prove its point. WARSAW 44 uses this "tricks" to express the madness of war and finds contemporary factors enabling many to feel the taste of this horrific war as if it was part of or closer to their most current life and issues. And through it the movie shows us how history taught us that how we never learn from it.
Apocalypse Now, Inglorious Basterds, Life is Beautiful, Romeo + Juliet, 300, Clash of Titans, Noah, Django, Great Gatsby (period movie with hip-hop songs), Marie Antoinette (period movie with rock songs in it -
You haven't read my note precisely: "recreate the period to the best" referring to Apocalypse Now is irrelevant. The movie is a complete abstract with main character on a mission to kill self made king of the Asian Jungle - Marlon Brando. Well not only the music doesn't match the period (and Vietnam war finished 7 years before the movie was completed) - electronic score from Carmine Coppola reflected what was going on in contemporary electronic music of the late 70's early 80's but was unlikely 10 years earlier. The scenes were just visions - like Playboy girls from the helicopter scene or surfing during bombing or Napalm commander in chief or every goddamn Brando scene. It was a pure abstraction. Warsaw 44 was exactly the same in approach but 2015 take - more extreme in every aspect and actually very close fact-wise. And Warsaw 44 had some period music as well - hence "I don't want to set the world on fire" or tangos from 30's heard in the first parts of the movie or in the scene with main character washing off blond girl's sewer swampy dirt. And as for the question: "what is so peculiar about wishing that a movie based on historical events should be as historically correct as possible in as many ways and areas as possible?" it's just the mentality behind it. In art world, which I consider films being part of, horse can get a pink dye and it could be real. Because it's somebody's vision. If you want raw reality or reflection thereof maybe you just need more documentaries or reality tv shows or maybe do not need art at all? (a hint: art comes from the word "artificial"). Abstraction, surrealism, impressionism, kitsch, pop culture, mannerism - are some of the most beautiful and daring means humans have ever accomplished in terms of self-expression. Warsaw 44 is the example of the strength of such.
shareIt just doesn't seem a good idea to use a very specific type of music from several decades in the future compared to what is being depicted on screen. Especially when it comes to historically based films. It jars on the ears. Just like scratching fingernails on a blackboard. It's also a cheap and easy way out of doing any research into period music. Slap something modern that the director likes into the soundtrack and voila, job done. Easy peasy.
Of course I know that artists all have 'personal visions' that can end up being made into very odd things. Good for them. Perhaps instead of being artists, they should strive more to being craftsmen, being skilled and proficient at their job. Being daring or a show-off is not synonymous with being an artist.
I was thinking about movies that were flawlessly matched with the soundtracks, like 'Paper Moon', 'Zelig', 'Radio Days', 'Full Metal Jacket', 'Barry Lyndon', the series 'Boardwalk Empire' ... all the music effortlessly and harmoniously fit with the imagery and moreover fit with the historical period as well. Which is how a movie should be crafted - with harmony and respect for history.
Warsaw 44 could have a first rate production. It will just be remembered as a WWII movie with bad rock music. Too bad. A missed chance.
In general, I'm with you, Gracie -- I think the music should fit the history. That's why I found your comment
> ...movies that were flawlessly matched with the soundtracks, like ... the series
> 'Boardwalk Empire' ... all the music effortlessly and harmoniously fit with the
> imagery and moreover fit with the historical period as well.
a bit odd. I liked BE a lot but every week that heavy-metal guitar theme music at the beginning did NOT put me in the frame of mind to go back to the '20s -- even though once the episode started the illusion eventually came into play.
I liked BE a lot but every week that heavy-metal guitar theme music at the beginning did NOT put me in the frame of mind to go back to the '20s
Yeah, see, aside from 'Apocalypse Now', the rest of the list were all pretty awful movies in my opinion.
Fortunately you are not the one what's there to be remembered or not is depended upon. Leave it to the rest of the world and let people love what you hate and vice versa
shareI don't think the aim was to recreate WWII bit for bit. Clearly the aim was to blend genres to tell a story about futility of war with impact today.
Are you seriously suggesting that this wasn't an artistic choice you just happen to disagree with?
Or are you suggesting that the choice of music (and bullet time/musical like settings etc) was down to sloppy research and misinterpretations of the historical facts?