|
Post by Picap on Aug 2, 2019 4:08:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 2, 2019 8:23:50 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 2, 2019 10:24:13 GMT
|
|
|
Post by will on Aug 2, 2019 11:29:30 GMT
I saw this movie. The film didn't show me enough tension. Characters such as Ari are interesting. The story is complete but tastes like a cup of water? People like to compare this with Argo, but I think the two film just looks similar in material. Argo is with less hostages and occurred during short time. It is a little easier to extract the key point and make a film. And Red Sea happened with thousands of refugees, dozens of missions in several years. So I think film makers should focus on what happened in the hotel day and night, choose one typical mission as pointcut. Director should add merits in this story.
I saw Ang Lee in the movie`s Special Thanks~~
|
|
|
Post by Fan on Aug 3, 2019 3:14:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 3, 2019 16:09:58 GMT
|
|
|
Post by bethnor on Aug 5, 2019 5:37:05 GMT
ah, bob. so that was what that was about. well, you're a bigger person than me. i would have spent way too much time arguing with them.
back when endgame publicity was picking up steam, i remember finding the term "chris evans canceled" trending. i thought then about putting my two cents onto the board, but i didn't want poke the hornet's nest, so to speak. anyhoo, might as well now.
firstly, i do think that a lot of these fans who feel negatively about this misread his politics, which i think can politely be summarized by saying, "he's a masshole." massachusetts being the home of the kennedy dynasty, and distinctly catholic, which compared to its evangelical and protestant equivalents, was progressive at the time. he's been very vocal that the politician he admires the most as being obama, and he was a very vocal hillary supporter. JFK, the clintons, and obama were all pro-israel, as far as i know. obama may have been more critical of israel, but he increased the military aid budget to 3 billion.
evans is not far left. he's an american leftist (that is to say, someone who the rest of the developed world would view as just left of center, as with obama). and if one were to summarize the average american leftist view of israel: the average american leftist is supportive of israel, but is also (much more) sympathetic to the palestinians. they try to straddle some kind of middle ground and are hopeful for a two-state solution, though i think most realists and pragmatists increasingly see it as a pipe dream.
(i'm by no means an expert on the middle east, so if anything i've stated is incorrect, please feel free to interject).
next, while i'm sympathetic to why people feel negatively, i have to say, i think the whole "cancel culture" thing is quite ineffectual. i'll put it this way. as a single individual, i have money invested in diversified funds. i am very certain that, were i to investigate the matter, some of that money eventually ends up being put into defense contracting/war profiteering (i.e., companies making money off of the violence in the middle east). see jill stein. this controversy almost certainly surrounds other americans who are in the same boat (i.e., probably everyone with diversified funds). furthermore, almost all taxpaying american citizens have some money being funneled into settling the west bank, it seems (i.e., nonprofits are making tax-free contributions to these settlements; being tax free means they are being underwritten by the american public). captain america aside, one can also make a reasonable guess that off of the billions made off the MCU, some of that money makes its way to those tax-free charities. in other words, for the people who feel negatively about this, the bus has left the station. a lot of their money probably has gone to pro-israel charities. at this time, me personally, i have no choice but to do the investing i do. it's the only way to put aside enough money in an increasingly precarious situation in the US, where the dollar goes a shorter and shorter distance. i know many other americans are in the exact same position, and really cannot parse out the intricacies of finance to see where it's "safe" to invest.
therefore, in my opinion, the beginning of addressing this problem is not "cancelling" an actor (which, as far as i can tell, just involves not supporting them anymore, lending your money to another actor/performer, until they disappoint you). the first step is to support politicians and leaders who respect separation between church and state. to be frank, as a secularist, there is no one who fits that bill for me--that's the real problem as far as i can tell. there are only people who might move the needle a little bit in that way, which is the best we can do. if anyone who feels negatively is a part of religious organization who is giving tax-free money in this way, they have to try to oppose it. or leave. the landscape of human rights would look very different if those of us left the religious institutions we were a part of when they misbehave, and as far as i can tell, much of the reason that the two-state solution will never come to fruition is hard-liners on either side, almost invariably the far-right religious.
all of this is assuming that the movie is pro-israel, which, without seeing it, one could only see it as if one took it at historical face value. which, me personally, it's been a long time since i've done. for instance, i didn't know much about the events of argo, but when i watched it, i was dead certain there was no last minute escape from the revolutionary guard. i will also echo those who state that, anything mossad has done, the cia has done too, and probably worse. (i.e., if one were to never make a movie depicting the CIA in a positive light, there would probably never be a movie with the CIA).
it puzzles me that some are reading some kind of malignant intent into his selection of the role. i'm very certain he picked it because he liked the script and it happened to fit into his schedule, and there weren't a lot of choices that fit the criteria (i.e., something that seemed good and could also fit in between filming avengers). it's funny, i just went to the beginning of the thread to check on when it was filmed. fascinating to recall that there were initial concerns that the movie wasn't going to be israeli enough! i do have to reiterate an old anecdote about travolta when he was receiving vitriol for battlefield earth. critics were heckling him about what he was thinking when he made the movie, to which he replied, somewhat taken aback by the anger, "it seemed like a good idea at the time!" of course, hind-sight is 20/20, and i agree it behooves one to make sure a movie based on historical events is accurate in its history, but the counterpoint is, if that were true, argo, dallas buyer's club, and titanic would not have been made. it is true that a premium should be placed on accuracy if the subject is somewhat controversial, however. going back to the beginning of the thread, it seemed like there was a lot of excitement surrounding the script. you could see how it was a project people wanted to be onboard with, and reiterates how a 1000 things have to fall into place for a movie to turn out good.
tl;dr.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Aug 5, 2019 10:36:55 GMT
bethnor Yes, nodded all the way through that post. Several nails hit firmly on the head. One more political point. I mentioned that it's possible to look at both sides and criticise. The Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza is illegal and immoral. On the other hand, the way Hamas rules Gaza is brutal with extra judicial executions and rampant corruption. Yet, of course, both sides have also much to praise. Even Israel! It irks me somewhat when I see LGBT flags next to accounts saying they're going to 'cancel' Chris such are their anti-Israeli sentiments. Israel is still the only Middle Eastern state in which it is safe to live openly as LGBT. That doesn't excuse bad behaviour towards Palestinian Arabs but it should be enough to give gay people pause to think Israel is not so 100% bad that even playing an Israeli is enough to enrage you to that point. It confirms to me that the vast majority of the 'offended' actually couldn't explain the Israeli/Palestine conflict to you if their lives depended on it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Oct 15, 2019 14:42:43 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Bob on Jan 8, 2020 13:02:15 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dawnofthenewathens on Mar 31, 2020 21:11:53 GMT
I watched this film a while ago and I was kind of disappointed. It had so much more potential than it used, because the focus was all wrong, and that kept the film from having the impact it could have had. I can't help but compare it to a film called Desert Flower I saw a few years ago. It's a different genre as it's a drama/biography, so I'm aware that it's not an entirely fair comparison.
Desert Flower is about a model/activist against female genital mutilation called Wairis Dirie and her life. There's a particular scene that has etched itself so clearly in my head that I still remember it, even though I haven't seen it in a long time. Some of the details are bit fussy, forgive me, but what I remember is heartbreaking, and that's not a word I use lightly. There's a scene, where a journalist asks the main character about the day that changed her life. The journalist goes on to give examples such as the day she got her contract with her agency, but Wairis says no. Then there's a flashback to the day the mutilation happens to her. You can see, hear and feel how brutal the mutilation is. It's difficult to stomach, even though there's so music, or other dramatic elements. It's a very simple scene. After the flashback, there's a cut back to the crying journalist and Wairis leaves.
This is the full film, but with subtitles in Asian language. If you have two hours free, I highly recommend watching the full film, though you will have to find somewhere else, since some scenes are in Somali and only make sense with subtitles you understand. The scene I'm talking about happens about 1h 43mins into the film.
Red Sea Diving Resort lacked this sort of impact and where I think the film went wrong. It would have had more impact if the film went down to a smaller scale and instead of showing masses of people being rescued, followed a family's story of rescue. It would have allowed for a closer look on the people, getting to know the refugees. It would have humanised them and not left them as faceless masses. This angle would really have emphasized the dramaticness, the whole craziness of the mission as well. Instead, the film focuses on the agents. There are so many shirtless or other scenes that I would describe as empty calories. They feel out of place in a film about such a serious issue.
In fact, watching this film made me kind of sad. The basis for this story is fascinating and not something I know a lot about. It's kind of the same time with Desert Flower. Before I watched it, I was only vaguely familiar with female genital mutilation. After the film, I was horrified and shocked, because the film showed how brutal it is effectively. Red Sea Diving Resort attempted a similar thing about the mission, but in my eyes it failed.
I apologise if the post seems incoherent or difficult to understand. But it was difficult to explain what I mean, and I'm not sure if I made my point clearly enough. Ask me if you want, and I'll try my best to clarify.
|
|