Gladiator is a classic

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If you don't wish to view the graphic violence, then perhaps you shouldn't see the movie. The movie juxstaposes the brutality, the utter senselessness of war, the real suffering and pain, with the honor and good deeds of those thrust into it.

You will diminish the work of Spielberg by ignoring the utter horrid nature of war and the Omaha beach scene.

I did not know all of the details of Gladiator but knew some of them. I loved that movie, but wish Commodus had truly been killed in the arena.

I agree, which is why, after 10 years of release, I still have not seen it.

I have great memories of my grandfather and his stories and actual photos to teach me, I guess. He was not Omaha Beach, but saw his share of death and suffering in concentration camps and in small towns along the way.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

1. I have no issue with it in the movie. I just choose to not watch it.
2. I am not of the opinion that the movie portrays the full awful reality. You arent going to get your head blown off watching that movie. You go home at the end of the movie and probably eat popcorn during it. You put it on pause to answer the phone. you seem to imply that this movie portrays the "full" reality of war, when in reality, no movie comes close.

As an aside, my grandfather was amongst a goup of troops that made it to the concentration camps at Bergen Belsen. His stories were fascinating (he has since passed on). But he rarely talked about it because it was so scarring and basically traumatized him for life. I am really grateful for what info he did share with us as kids, esp now that he is gone.

To say that I get, or even come close to grasping the "full awful reality" ofWW2, or any individual battle therein, because I have seen some graphic movies is almost comical. Movies tell stories. By definition, they require a suspension of disbelief to even watch them. but since the viewer is never really in any danger, how can it be close to reality? I would imagine that most of the trauma experienced by soldiers is the result of mental suffering, something that a movie goer cannot grasp.

maybe I am missing the point, though.

Yes, I think you are missing the point. Of course, no movie is going to have the same impact on a viewer as said viewer having his or her head blown off. That's a silly standard to hold. The point is, the movie presents the reality of the invasion. I.e., as if you were viewing it in real-time. No artificial softening it up in order to not offend someone's delicate nature. IMO, showing a realistic and honest depiction of the battle honors those who had to endure it.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, I think you are missing the point. Of course, no movie is going to have the same impact on a viewer as said viewer having his or her head blown off. That's a silly standard to hold. The point is, the movie presents the reality of the invasion. I.e., as if you were viewing it in real-time. No artificial softening it up in order to not offend someone's delicate nature. IMO, showing a realistic and honest depiction of the battle honors those who had to endure it.

I see your point. I guess we can respectfully disagree to the use of the term "reality." Movies are fun and interesting. They are, by definition, no portrayel of reality.

I dont think movies portray things realistically because they lack the critical emotional component of the subject being portrayed--that is, while showing people getting their head blown off can make you think, "Wow, that is awful. Our boys sacrificed everything for us at Normandy," I feel it is naive to think, "Wow, watching this movie is realistic. It is like being there. I get it...War is Hell." I think that does more disservice to the honor of those that were there and vomiting from fear than to assume that watching a movie and actually portrays any sort of reality. People that watch war movies do not suffer emotionally for the rest of their lives.

Anyway, see any other good movies lately? I really want to see the new Steve Carrell movie because it looks like it may be funny.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I see your point. I guess we can respectfully disagree to the use of the term "reality." Movies are fun and interesting. They are, by definition, no portrayel of reality.

I dont think movies portray things realistically because they lack the critical emotional component of the subject being portrayed--that is, while showing people getting their head blown off can make you think, "Wow, that is awful. Our boys sacrificed everything for us at Normandy," I feel it is naive to think, "Wow, watching this movie is realistic. It is like being there. I get it...War is Hell." I think that does more disservice to the honor of those that were there and vomiting from fear than to assume that watching a movie and actually portrays any sort of reality. People that watch war movies do not suffer emotionally for the rest of their lives.

Yes, if you find meticulous efforts for historical accuracy to be a "disservice" and if you would prefer to see an edited version, then you and I disagree.

But I respect your viewpoint. Peace, brother.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

There is something incredibly moving about a bunch of young men driving their boats to the beach and running down the plank knowing full well that many, if not most of them would be killed instantly. The courage, sacrifice, and the horror of such a situation seems beyond my ability to fully comprehend. And in this case, it was arguably the climactic event in the biggest cataclysm in human history. It is awe-inspiring.

I agree with you. I'm just now finishing up the final Tivo'ed episode of "The War" and I find myself riveted when I watch it. Thanks to you guys for pointing it out; I'd otherwise not have seen it.

Nonetheless, I find myself on TripletDaddy's side of the movie debate. I'm not so sure that showing graphic violence in the quest of "realism" in order to better "appreciate" what happened is in our best interests. I'm not convinced that one can't fully appreciate the sacrifice without viewing the horror, nor am I convinced that depicting such horrors in their fullness effectively imbues that sense of respect. In some regard, I think it can even approach disrespect.

Moreover, it opens up other worms. Shall we depict violent on-screen rape in its fullness in an effort to better appreciate the motives behind it? Child abuse? Torture?

And what is the effect on children who inevitably will view these images? If the reality is so accurate as the proponents say, is it wise to force them on them?

I don't fault Spielburg for making it, or anyone for wanting to see it, and if someone says it gives them deeper appreciation, fine. But I don't like the suggestion that my appreciation is inferior because I haven't.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Yes, if you find meticulous efforts for historical accuracy to be a "disservice" and if you would prefer to see an edited version, then you and I disagree.

But I respect your viewpoint. Peace, brother.

Nulla in mundo pax sincera.

Just kidding. Peace to you and yours.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I dont think movies portray things realistically because they lack the critical emotional component of the subject being portrayed--that is, while showing people getting their head blown off can make you think, "Wow, that is awful. Our boys sacrificed everything for us at Normandy," I feel it is naive to think, "Wow, watching this movie is realistic. It is like being there. I get it...War is Hell." I think that does more disservice to the honor of those that were there and vomiting from fear than to assume that watching a movie and actually portrays any sort of reality. People that watch war movies do not suffer emotionally for the rest of their lives.

Art is always a subjective experience. I think fictional accounts like War and Peace, the Iliad, the Aeneid, and Blood Meridian have helped me to better appreciate the horrors of war, and the sacrifices made by those who have fought and even paid the ultimate price. I feel the same way about the movies discussed here, though in general I consider literature to be a superior medium to film, though it is inherantly more abstract (hence perhaps more firing of the imagination).

The fact that literary and dramatic works depicting war and heroism and tragedy have had such permanent and transcendent power in our culture makes Lebowski's point. The Iliad may be THE seminal writing in our culture, since Greek and ultimately all Classical culture sprang from it, and we are their cultural progeny. If you don't like graphic violence stay away from the Iliad. Also, most of Shakespeare's historicals and tragedies should get R or NC-17 ratings for violence. Harold Bloom thinks that Shakespeare's works have replaced the Iliad or the Bible as our fouding epic.

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

I see your point. I guess we can respectfully disagree to the use of the term "reality." Movies are fun and interesting. They are, by definition, no portrayel of reality.

I dont think movies portray things realistically because they lack the critical emotional component of the subject being portrayed--that is, while showing people getting their head blown off can make you think, "Wow, that is awful. Our boys sacrificed everything for us at Normandy," I feel it is naive to think, "Wow, watching this movie is realistic. It is like being there. I get it...War is Hell." I think that does more disservice to the honor of those that were there and vomiting from fear than to assume that watching a movie and actually portrays any sort of reality. People that watch war movies do not suffer emotionally for the rest of their lives.

That's true, but I don't think that's really the point. Of course, watching this movie is not akin to really being there. BUT, this movie is about as close to experiencing the awful event one can get without actually being there. Many vets who were there have said so.

With apologies to the great John Wayne, you get zero idea of how horrible war is by watching The Sands of Iwo Jima. Not true with SPR.

[MikeWaters]

Saving Private Ryan is awful after the first 15 minutes. Edited or not, it's not worth watching after the first 15 minutes.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Tex

II don't fault Spielburg for making it, or anyone for wanting to see it, and if someone says it gives them deeper appreciation, fine. But I don't like the suggestion that my appreciation is inferior because I haven't.

My take from Lebowski wasnt so much a suggestion that our appreciation is inferior...as much as he personally feels a closer kinship to the events through the on-screen visual. He wasnt advocating an en masse viewing of an unedited war movie. I view them as mutually exclusive.

To this point, if any of you are ever in LA and would like a very wonderful museum experience (unfortunately not the Museum of Sex, which is on 5th Avenue), go check out the Simon Wiesenthal Museum of Tolerance, which is basically the West Coast Holocaust museum. it is located about 10 mins from the LA Temple. While nowhere near the scale of the DC Museum, it certainly is worth the visit. You are assigned a name card of a Nazi prisoner (not always a jewish person, btw) and then proceed through a series of exhibits and short films that show pictures, artifacts, and most interestingly, actual interviews of concentration camp survivors. You are afforded the chance to learn a bit more about the life of the person whose name you are carrying through the use of computer databases. At the very end of the tour, you find out whether the person you were carrying survived or died. My person died. I wept.

In one of the interviews, a survivor is asked about the importance of the work of the SHOAH foundation and of movies like Schindler's List. The survivor commented that the SHOAH foundation work is critical because it documents real people who were actually there. But he had never bothered to watch Schindler's List because he said, in essence, that no movie could ever match what he went through.

There is also a MOT in NY, so if you are there, go check out the MOT and the Museum of Sex in one weekend.