The Flick Filosopher's Mail

[home]
[archive]
[new to video/dvd]
[articles]
[search the site]
[faq]
[join the mailing list]
[reader mail]
[links]
[awards]
[goodies]
[manifesto]

posted 02.15.99
In response to my response to his previous letter:
Clintonio7@email.msn.com writes:
Sorry, I work insane hours and usually don't have time to spend on email, and as a result my mail was not as clear as I had intended, and really not meant to be a flame mail, and I'm sorry it came across that way. However, in a funny sense it did give evidence to the point I was trying to make. That, even though you read my email, you made all this stuff up which I never said, you took my words and made them mean this whole story. That only veterans being able to understand The Thin Red Line for example, even though I said and really meant no such thing. That's just the point, we read between the lines and fill in the blanks with our fear, and then we lash out to protect ourselves from this fear we have conjured on our own.

I really have no opinion of what a movie should and shouldn't be, it is what it is and I take it as such without trying to judge whether or not the directors/actors intentions were/are valid. I have my own favorites yes, but I don't condemn others for what they like. If indeed The Thin Red Line only spoke to veterans, I would not condemn it as a failure, just as I would not condemn a movie that only spoke to kids, or women as a failure, just because it is a smaller audience, doesn't make it invalid, and won't make me run around condemning Like Water for Chocolate just because I didn't get it.

Ok, again, about WWII. If you read my mail without adding anything, you'll see that I said nothing about my stand on WWII, yet you conjure up this idea that I would not fight, or take a stand, to stop what the allies were fighting against. What I said was that the idea that Hitler had was exactly what I was trying to say is the problem. That he made all the misery in his life the fault of Jews, etc., and then after that his mind kept justifying his actions for what he did, making the events around him prove again and again his conviction and even convince others with the so-called proof he had gathered. This is what I'm against, killing because we believe that we are right, defending ourselves is a little different, and more dependent on the situation, again in my opinion. So just to make this clear, I believe that anyone initiating violence against another is wrong, that defending oneself and others against that violence is justified, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. That if people as a whole stand against something there is no need for violence against another to bring it about, as Gandhi proved quite well. If you dissagree [sic] with this, I was wrong then to assume that you would agree, forgive me I meant no harm by saying that you would agree with this....!

Ultimately everyone is going to see something different in a movie, just like everyone gets something different from reading the same novel. Lord of the Flies is a classic example, in China, the sea shell meant this whole symbolizm [sic] that the Author had never intended it to mean. Does this make that interpretation less valid, no. I'm not against conjuring up meaning in our lives, that's what it is to be human, that's what we are constantly looking for, I'm just saying, and I thought The Thin Red Line brought this to light, that killing based on that meaning is a terrible thing, but a fact of life. As the soldiers again and again prove with there [sic] turmoil in trying to find meaning in the violence of war, and once they think they find it, holding onto it like it is the truth, and justifying killing or abusing prisoners of war because of it, for some of them anyway. That is what is ugly about people, and there are as many meanings wrapped around violence as there are people whole commit it. Perhaps the only thing that can save us then is to realize that we all have this potential built into us. That we could possible conjure up reasons to harm another, and really, that is sad. That Witt at the end dies even though he doesn't believe in harming another, is tragic, and as great tragedies, the message is beautiful at the same time. "One man seeing a dying bird fluttering against the ground says that death is laughing at its struggle against its pain, and another man will see in it the glory of life." Sorry to parraphrase [sic] but it is the best I can remember it. I think this line is the key to the whole point I was trying to make. The other point that we are one, and violence against another is violence against oneself, is what the narrator is saying in his last lines at the end of the movie. It is just a reading of the movie. I'm just trying to give an alternate opinion to your review is all.

Anyway... don't worry, won't stop reading your web page, and no I don't believe you need to be spoon fed, didn't say that... and didn't mean that about you personally...
C.
ps Thank-you for the reply...

The Flick Filosopher responds:
I didn't take your mail as a flame, but because I mostly couldn't figure out what you were talking about I had to fumble around trying to understand.
I had to read between your lines. No, you didn't mention veterans per se, but now who's twisting words? I asked whether you thought that only vets had the right to criticize TRL, not that only they could understand it. I think my question was a valid interpretation of: "In my opinion, one of the dangers of reviewing movies and giving them critics, is that one can only really judge movies on one's experiences, and knowledge base, which is, no matter the person, limited." Obviously, something in my experience or lack thereof made you feel that I didn't get all from the movie that I should have.
You have no opinion of what a movie should and shouldn't be? Whoa. How do you judge a movie if you don't take into account what a movie should and shouldn't be and don't wonder about the creators' intentions? What's left? Are there no objective values by which we can critique works of art and entertainment? If TRL spoke only to veterans, then it failed in speaking to me. I'm hardly damning Terrence Malick to hell -- I'm just saying I don't like what he has to say. You have every right to try to change my opinion of him and this movie, but I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
I wouldn't condemn a movie merely for speaking only to women or children or purple dogs from Mars. I would have a few choice words for a movie aimed at women if it seemed to espouse wife battering as a way of keeping the little woman in line. And I stand by my opinion that TRL, a movie about war and violence, seems to me to be espousing a wrongheaded view about human nature.
[[Ok, again, about WWII. If you read my mail without adding anything,]] That was impossible as I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say.
[[you'll see that I said nothing about my stand on WWII, yet you conjure up this idea that I would not fight, or take a stand, to stop what the allies were fighting against.]] You wrote: "but somehow we manage to conjure up meanings that justify our violence against one another, all of it made up, none more valid then another, and certainly not worth killing over" [emphasis mine]. How else could I interpret this? You were writing in reference to a movie about WWII and you said that movie was telling us that all our justifications for violence are made up and none of them are valid. I ask again, how else was I to interpret this?
Hitler thought he was defending himself and his people. Hitler didn't think he was a madman. The Allies fought Hitler because we believed we were right. Everything is open to interpretation. I'm not defending Hitler by any means -- he was an absolutely despicable little toad. But righteousness is a matter of opinion, not fact. And where do you draw the line between defense and offense? Was it defense to bomb Hiroshima? Dresden?
Of course alternative interpretations of a work are not invalid, if they can be supported by the work in question. You still haven't offered anything from the movie to support your view -- dialogue, plot points, composition of shots, etc.
[[I thought The Thin Red Line brought this to light, that killing based on that meaning is a terrible thing, but a fact of life.]] Sorry, but you're still not making yourself clear. Killing based on what meaning? How did TRL demonstrate these things? Please remember that we're talking about the movie's point of view, not our own. I'm not denigrating anything you may believe in, but we're talking about what a movie has to say.
[[As the soldiers again and again prove with there turmoil in trying to find meaning in the violence of war...]] Where did you see this in the movie? I'm baffled. What meaning did they find? How did they use this supposed meaning to justify their actions?
I saw no beauty in Witt's death, but I bet he did. He thought he'd be going on to some eternal reward. Anyway, we all die in the end not matter what we believe.
[[I think this line is the key to the whole point I was trying to make.]] I don't remember that line, but I don't see how it ties into your argument. Actually, I still don't quite see what your argument is.
[[The other point that we are one, and violence against another is violence against oneself, is what the narrator is saying in his last lines at the end of the movie. It is just a reading of the movie. I'm just trying to give an alternate opinion to your review is all.]] You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but what evidence from the movie do you have to support this? I feel like we must have seen different movies! I heard no such thing in the narrator final lines. He wondered about losing the good that is given to us -- how did you get violence against oneself out of that?
[[no I don't believe you need to be spoon fed, didn't say that... and didn't mean that about you personally... ]] Well, that seemed to be your implication, since I obviously didn't get the deeper meaning you saw in TRL.

posted 02.15.99
respect@aros.net writes:
As a fellow critic, I want to commend you on your defending of your opinions. However, as a fellow critic, I must admit that I completely disagree with you. In fact, The Thin Red Line pushed Saving Private Ryan off of my top ten list. It was a work of art, and I think it is completely ironic that you seem so content on saying, "Movies are primarily entertainment, and secondarily, sometimes, art." And then, you have the audacity to bash such films as Armageddon which goes for pure entertainment value with no artistic license taken. Or Lethal Weapon 4, which was very entertaining yet viewed as art, it's pure crap. How can Hollywood change from films like The Waterboy to films like Beloved when even critics argue in favor of entertainment first? Obviously, producers are in it for the business, and they want to make money. When critics start agreeing that films are primarily for entertainment purposes, we will continue to get films like The Waterboy. Your comment had the insight of a 14-year-old boy who wants to see more violence and nudity in films... because that's entertainment.

The Thin Red Line is not set out to entertain. It's a war film, and war in general is not entertaining. Instead, Malick strives to make us feel what it was like. He makes us feel the everlasting and infinite timespan. Sure, I checked my watched during the film a couple times, but when I did, I realized Malick's point. When in war, time goes by extremely slowly. There is no point to war... it's a barrage of the senses. The endless amounts of time just waiting for a battle to occur is immense. Saving Private Ryan wanted to show the horrors of war; The Thin Red Line wanted to make you feel the horrors of war. This just shows the stupidity of American audiences -- they seem to get dumber each year. When a film comes out that is purely surreal and mythical, they won't see it. Those that do often bash it. The Thin Red Line made me feel as empty as any film I've ever seen. It made me feel depressed beyond belief. It made me want to cry for all the veterans who had to experience such emptiness. Malick is a true auteur, and sooner or later, The Thin Red Line will be held up as a classic war film. It's [sic] effects will be longer lasting than that of Spielberg's film. The Thin Red Line deals with hard subjects in such a non-Hollywood way that immediately people will hate it. The same occurred when 2001 was released. Now look how it is revered. The Thin Red Line is a film condemning war and juxtaposing nature vs. man. It's a film of pure artistic license. It's a haunting rendition of man's greatest fear: waiting for your own inevitable death.
Boyd Petrie
Respect's Movie Reviews

The Flick Filosopher responds:
Well, here we go again.
Entertainment doesn't mean titillation. Entertainment means taking the audience out of themselves, exploring a new world with them, showing them something beyond themselves, enthralling them, shocking them, moving them. Armageddon was not entertaining -- it was boring. LW4 was not entertainment -- it was boring (except for Mel's baby blues *grin*). The Thin Red Line failed to entertain me not because it was long or about war or tried to be "arty." TRL bored me because it was preachy and pretentious and espoused a viewpoint that I heartily disagree with.
[[He makes us feel the everlasting and infinite timespan. Sure, I checked my watched during the film a couple times]] Everlasting and infinite indeed. If you're checking your watch during a movie, then that movie has failed to make you forget you're sitting in a dark theater with sticky soda on the floor and that your foot is falling asleep. That movie has not succeeded in drawing you fully into its world -- and if it can't do that, then how is the audience gonna hear what it's trying to say? I have no problems at all with surreal and mythical. TRL just wasn't those things.
[[Malick is a true auteur, and sooner or later, The Thin Red Line will be held up as a classic war film.]] Bully for Malick. I'll still be bored by TRL.
[[It's effects will be longer lasting than that of Spielberg's film.]] Can you pick Lotto numbers, too? I really could use some cash.
[[The Thin Red Line deals with hard subjects in such a non-Hollywood way that immediately people will hate it. The same occurred when 2001 was released. Now look how it is revered.]] Yes, it's so un-Hollywood that it dispenses with things like plot and character. If I wanted 3 hours of pretty nature film, I'd watch the Discovery Channel. And a lot of people still think 2001 is pretentious crap, too -- some of it is.
[[The Thin Red Line is a film condemning war and juxtaposing nature vs. man.]] Well, see, that was the problem I had with it. There is no man/nature divide. We are natural creatures. We are part of nature. We are not elevated above it.
And who is for war? Of course it condemned war. War is awful. How much more "arty" and daring it would have been to make a movie arguing in favor of a righteous war.
[[It's a film of pure artistic license.]] It's a film of pure crap.

posted 02.15.99
Patrick.Moore@entex.com writes:
I'm a Film Geek fan... and I found your link through his site, I do agree with what you have your site, you seem like soulmates. Your writing styles, thoughts... very similar... and I thoroughly enjoyed your reviews and I do believe I will have to have 2 movie critics sites bookmarked now!!! now you've just got to help me talk him into getting a t-shirt made...
Smiles,
Patrick

The Flick Filosopher responds:
It's almost spooky, isn't it, how similar Film Geek and I are? Don't you want one of my t-shirts, too? *grin*
Thanks for stopping by. Glad you enjoyed the site!

newer mail | previous mail

[home] [archive] [new to video/dvd]
[articles] [search the site] [faq]
[join the mailing list] [reader mail] [links]
[awards] [goodies] [manifesto]

thechick@flickfilosopher.com

thechick@
flickfilosopher.com

Tell me I'm full of bull dinky. Tell me I'm right on the money. Tell me anything.

made with a mac