Full Metal Jacket was one example. If it were not for the basic training scenes, this one would have ended up just another Stanley Kubrick acid trip. At very least we can call it "distorted reality".
But I digress.
From the LA Times:
Some soldiers and veterans say the movie, a favorite for the best picture Oscar, portrays them as renegades and doesn't depict combat accurately. But film critics have praised its authenticity.
So help me understand something here, as it very well could be that I am just some dense bozo with a blog or someone who doesn't understand what the elitists understand.
How many film critics have ever actually been in combat? I mean who are these people? What are their names? In what theater did they serve, and what damn units were they in?
Because from where I sit, if a film critic thinks it is an accurate portrayal of what life was really like in Iraq, I think they should halt, identify themselves, and then advance to be recognized. They should tell us where they were in Iraq and what their jobs were, so as to lend some credibility to their opinions.
Otherwise, they are nothing more than a bunch of ignoramuses.
Ignorant people are people who do not know things. But many of them are people who know they don't know... and do not act like they know. There is a certain integrity in them.
In contrast to this demographic, there are people who think they know about things and yet, know nothing at all. These are the people who are are truly lower than the lowest whale dung, which sinks to the bottom of the ocean floor. In them, there is no integrity and no validity to what they may say about the things they know nothing about.
This is the category that I place these film critics. Looking closer we can see another example of distorted reality, within the spaces between their ears.
Addendum:
Greg put a link in the comment section, to a NYT essay that pretty much says it's crap. It's a great read, if you have a moment.
9 comments:
I picked up on the bit about critics - what is their qualification?
Well, it's because they are celebrities. This has always been a pet peeve of mine, celebrities that are experts because they are celebrities.
Make a movie, your qualified to write a book on parenting.
Make a movie, your qualified to write a book on nutrition.
Make a movie, your qualified to write a book on orthopedic surgery (okay, I can't confirm this one but I bet it has happened).
Finally you can find a clue as to it's validity in this
a favorite for the best picture Oscar
If this is true you can count on two things
-it portrays the troops as wild maniacs indiscriminately killing all in their way while internally conflicted at the monster they have become
-it will be an attack piece on Bush and yet another dissertation on how going to Iraq is the root of every ill inflicting society today
Speaking of thinly veiled anti-American shit masquerading as cinema, have you guys seen Avatar? I saw it last week and was floored by how mind-numbingly stupid it was. It was also offensive in many respects.
Anyway, has anyone seen Hurt Locker? My father said it was the best movie he'd seen in a long time. I will probably go see it, but with he expectation that it will be exactly as LAS predicted, and the hope that it isn't....
I didn't see the movie, nor any other Hollywood war flicks during the Bush era (with the exception of Blackhawk Down). It was obvious they cranked up their own war machine to battle America's real one.
How many war anti-war movies are currently in the pipeline with Obama in the CIC spot?
Gates says the movie is realistic, many troops say it's not. I'll leave it to the ones who know. But like you say, it's a damn sure thing that most of Hollywood doesn't know.
Interesting review of the movie. It's a very negative review by someone who covered the Iraq war.
http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/essay-15/?ref=world
//Make a movie, your qualified to write a book on orthopedic surgery (okay, I can't confirm this one but I bet it has happened).//
More like proctology, I would say.
But you are right, suddenly being a talented actor or actress doesn't equate to expertise on other things like military service, except in the case of Audie Murphy.
//have you guys seen Avatar?//
I heard it was nothing more than a revamped version of Pocahontas, or something like that. All special effects and very little substance. I probably will not see it ever. It just doesn't interest me.
//I'll leave it to the ones who know. But like you say, it's a damn sure thing that most of Hollywood doesn't know.//
Exactly.
I served in peacetime, so even I cannot know what combat is like. We fought communism in Europe, it was a spy war.
From the essay you linked to, Greg:
//The film is a collection of scenes that are completely implausible — wrong in almost every respect. //
Great read, sir. Thanks for sharing it.
I think this pretty much sums up what the man who wrote it thought of the movie.
I will put up a link on the main post.
It's been my observation that most film critics tend to be elitist and deluded about reality.
Considering Hollyweird has a moonbat infestation, it's no surprise that they would make a film that is basically a lie and treasonous.
HAM
Post a Comment