mainly Flags of Our Fathers -- argh!
Oct. 27th, 2006 04:37 pmTonight's agenda is housecleaning. After I go buy Fall of the Kings and risk McDonalds french fries thanks to the results of their being ELISA tested and seeming to be a reasonable risk. I know, terrible, but I have so many disciplines these days, I deserve my fries.
I saw Flags of Our Fathers, which is irritating. First of all, what exactly is Eastwood trying to convey? Does he want us to accept that in times of war one must tow the party line even if the party line sucks? Does he want us to see that war is bad and chaotic? That all us losers who watch war movies are lame because we can't understand war? What the message is wouldn't matter so much if the film weren't so heavy-handed (and this is a weird thing, feeling like you're being bludgeoned with something, but being unable to tell what the fuck it is). There's a framing device of a son writing a book, but that's unclear until very late in the film (hi, framing devices go ALL THE WAY AROUND) and the film is sloppy about clearly linking the younger versions of the characters to the older ones. None of this would be remotely as irritating as it is if Clint Eastwood weren't a really solid director -- so there are great shots, striking moments, odd humour, etc -- but it never adds up to anything other than "This is a war movie. War is bad. This is a war movie. War is bad. You don't understand, I mean, REALLY, REALLY BAD. Cry now." Really frustrating. Also, really fine performances that emphasize the degree to which Eastwood should have narrowed and focused the story. The disjointed script is totally going to cost an actor an Oscar.
I am also really excited to start discussing Swordspoint on
themollyhouse because really, mostly, none of you all want to hear it.
Finally, in my further media adventures today, I was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for a piece they are doing about cell phone text message spam.
I saw Flags of Our Fathers, which is irritating. First of all, what exactly is Eastwood trying to convey? Does he want us to accept that in times of war one must tow the party line even if the party line sucks? Does he want us to see that war is bad and chaotic? That all us losers who watch war movies are lame because we can't understand war? What the message is wouldn't matter so much if the film weren't so heavy-handed (and this is a weird thing, feeling like you're being bludgeoned with something, but being unable to tell what the fuck it is). There's a framing device of a son writing a book, but that's unclear until very late in the film (hi, framing devices go ALL THE WAY AROUND) and the film is sloppy about clearly linking the younger versions of the characters to the older ones. None of this would be remotely as irritating as it is if Clint Eastwood weren't a really solid director -- so there are great shots, striking moments, odd humour, etc -- but it never adds up to anything other than "This is a war movie. War is bad. This is a war movie. War is bad. You don't understand, I mean, REALLY, REALLY BAD. Cry now." Really frustrating. Also, really fine performances that emphasize the degree to which Eastwood should have narrowed and focused the story. The disjointed script is totally going to cost an actor an Oscar.
I am also really excited to start discussing Swordspoint on
Finally, in my further media adventures today, I was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal for a piece they are doing about cell phone text message spam.
no subject
Date: 2006-10-27 09:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-10-28 01:48 am (UTC)If you're out and about and need a snack though, Chipolte is a fantastic bet. The only thing containing gluten is their burrito wrap and soft taco shells You can get food in a bowl or get hard tacos (ask them to change their gloves first) and I snack on their guac and chips ($2.50) all the time.
I have to go see that since
Date: 2006-10-28 02:25 am (UTC)It's good to be warned. Thank you!