MovieChat Forums > Etherdave > Replies
Etherdave's Replies
His oily attempt at charm, after revealing his outright hatred towards Kaffee, is notable. He knows he made a critical mistake, and clumsily tries to cover it over.
Probably not, but I felt this incident reflected Kaffey's own attitude about himself; civilian lawyers often face bar discipline for legal misconduct, and Kaffey, at least at this point in time, still seems to view himself as a civilian lawyer in a military monkey-suit (much is made about his attire, especially those stupidly-transparent whites you can see your underwear through). I'm not sure he actually meant it, he simply responded reflexively to the situation. Whether or not he actually could get Galloway disbarred may be well beyond the scope of this drama.
United States Marines are trained to give their lives, if necessary, to protect their fellows. Whether it's risking court-martial by refusing a command, or transferring a man with a legitimate medical condition that puts him AND (by extension) his fellow Marines at risk, by accepting the consequences of being an incompetent diagnostician or XO, or jumping on a grenade, you protect your fellow Marine's life, because if you survive, one day he will do the same thing for you. Pvt. Santiago's death was caused by a CO, an XO, an MCO, a junior officer and two Privates, and once that happened, they all failed in their duty. Simple as that.
Demi Moore didn't ruin this movie. Her squeaky delivery and harping tone were perfect for a green, relatively talented litigant with excellent insight but poor execution. The sweeping orchestral flourish at the end, with the huge 'The End' title in Written-style script, ruined this movie. Rob Reiner took a tight, small, smartly-written courthouse stage drama about the differences between civilian and military culture in the United States, and tried to turn it into a big-screen epic about the military itself. Rob Reiner ruined this movie.
We may assume, in hindsight I suppose, that Kendrick is hostile because he KNOWS something went wrong, that somebody is going to have to pay for; it also represents a key flaw in Kendrick's character that he cannot hide his resentment of another branch's officers investigating his unit. The film is all about character flaws that potentially undermine the characters, that have led indirectly to Santiago's death, and directly lead to Jessup's and Kendrick's downfall; Kaffey's own character flaws, his fear of failure, the burden he carries of his father's memory, and his own refusal to fully commit to his cases, are overcome by his character, resulting in his success at revealing the truth behind the incident.
Do you mean Germans like Thomas Kretschmann (Remer), Christian Berkel (Mertz von Quirnheim), Matthias Freihof (Himmler), Valdemar Kobus (von Helldorff), Werner Daehn (von Freyend), Gerhard Haase-Hindenberg (Goering), Anton Algrang (Speer), Helmut Strauss (Freisler), and of course Philipp von Schulthess (von Tresckow's aide), who is the grandson of Claus von Stauffenberg? This was an international production and was reflected by an international cast, hence Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Bernard Hill, Terence Stamp, Tom Wilkinson, and Eddie Izzard (English), not to mention Carisa Van Houten and Halina Reijn (Dutch). The film was directed and co-produced by Bryan Singer (American), who wanted Cruise (also American, as well as a co-producer) in the picture and didn't want a docu-drama, but a wartime political thriller. Germany was originally very hesitant to provide resources for this film, as Cruise (who bears a strange resemblance to von Stauffenberg) is controversial due to his adherence to Scientology, which is banned as a cult in Germany. Eventually they did cooperate and allowed film production to proceed on location at Studio Babelsburg, Berlin's oldest surviving film studio. Originally off-limits to film producers, the Finance Ministry allowed use of the notorious Bendlerblock, where the executions actually took place.
American films tend to be in English, reflecting the mother tongue of the intended audience. This film started out in German and changed to English during Cruise's voice-over at the beginning of the film, a familiar-enough device that tells us all it's being translated for us, not necessarily for the benefit of the cast (most of whom speak or understand German) but for that of the audience. It may be displeasurable for some, but is it REALLY a major issue in this film?
The line may be unintentionally more controversial than Melville intended. Since the beginning of the story is being related by a narrator having already survived the ordeal of the Pequod, 'me alone having lived to tell thee', is his name actually Ishmael, or has he slyly concocted the moniker to evoke the biblical character (Biblical Ishmael was turned out into the desert, but by Providence saved from death by thirst... Melville's Ishmael is turned out into the sea, but by Providence saved from drowning)? If so, is there any more of this rather tall tale of the Big Fish That Got Away that is invented? Is the narrator a reliable narrator, or is he attempting to cover from some other, more disturbing catastrophe, such as a mutiny or a shipwreck? Is the narrator truly an 'Ishmael' or is he more of a 'Jonah' as described by Father Mapple in his sermon?
Bradbury's adaptation is splendid, but I didn't care for the bar scene; Stubbs seems too arrogant when he declares New Bedford to have exclusive rights to whaling: this was the assertion of the narrator in the novel, in praising the sailors of the American whaling fleet. The novel passes from New Bedford to Nantucket, which was the true epicenter of whaling in this region; were Ishmael accosted by a boisterous whaler to acknowledge New Bedford, he would certainly have to repeat the ordeal in Nantucket.
I think you're thinking of 'Orca' (1977), a thoroughly dick-less (though no less turgid) attempt at a 'Jaws' imitation. You need to read more Melville, and try to keep your hands off your Moorcock.
'The Maid of Amsterdam', or 'A-Roving', a traditional sea shanty. It may date to the Elizabethan era, and was popular throughout Northern Europe centuries prior to this story. The bar scene is not from the novel, and was created to greatly abridge the earlier portions of the narrative.
Some of the whaling footage is actual, from the whaling fleet of Madeira, Portugal, which director Huston duly acknowledges at the end of the opening credits.
The color was achieved by combining a color negative with a black-and-white negative, and was intended to emulate period book illustrations and prints.
I dunno, she lived, didn't she? Given her reveal as the little boys' universal object of lust, not to mention the shamelessly exploitative opening scene of her as 'Miss Amity' we might expect, given the relentless tropism of the slasher film, that she was destined for something even more horrible than merely witnessing somebody else being devoured. But there it is, these formulae were further developed in later films.
I dunno. Do you think any of the Council Members resigned in shame over their intransigence and inaction?
Stick to a single era? Why? Shakespeare didn't. His 'Titus' freely borrows from Republican and Imperial Roman history because he didn't want to follow a strictly historical subject. Who was the Emperor Saturninus? Which general was Titus Andronicus? None of these people ever existed, nor did a Rome simultaneously following Republican political institutions while fending off barbarian hordes at its very gates. It's all just window-dressing, designed to evoke a bygone era rather than try to faithfully represent it. Mussolini wanted to blend his fascist state of the 1930s with the grandeur of Ancient Rome. Why can't Julie Taymor?
I'm surprised it got that wide a release, only 6 theatres less than 'Star Wars' (1977). I'm going to assume 33 of them were in NYC, probably including the same venue where Taymor's live version was staged. How many other films featuring this level of violence (rape, torture, dismemberment, impalement, spooning, stabbing, human sacrifice, desecration of corpses, cannibalism) have had wider releases? However appealing you may find this film, however stimulating you might find its action or content, whatever enjoyment you may personally derive from it, you cannot possibly consider it mainstream entertainment. Neither do film distributors.
I did
We never called lumpfish caviar 'mock'. But then again, we never called it 'caviar', either. Of course, Safeway never carried Beluga.
This is NOT called 'Casting Against Type'. Burton's drunks are always a thing to behold, and probably the result of special insight on the actor's part.
It's the same way the book ends, which was critically acclaimed, which I suppose includes the ending. Dull? That's what Leamas claims the whole thing is, in his speech to Nan (whose name in the novel, by the way, was Liz Gold, a rather obvious reference to the fact she may be Jewish, like the expendable Fiedler). Chinatown? That came five years later, and is a film noir. Trite platitudes and catchphrases ('The stuff dreams are made of') are a staple of film noir, not spy films based on novels by John LeCarre. Leamas played a worn, embittered, alcoholic agent to carry out Control's plan. The trouble was, Leamas really was a worn, embittered, alcoholic agent, who foolishly found love while on the job, and then let that be the straw that broke his back. He should not have died? Tell that to Control; I'd say Control pretty much got everything he wanted, including the glorious, heroic death of his Man in Berlin, who might otherwise have become unreliable, dangerous, and... who knows? Defected? Knowing how Control turns out in LeCarre's subsequent novels, I would say this story, whether filmed or written, turned out exactly the way it always was going to.