I have been hunting for groups and organizations that are trying to do something about the problem in Sudan. Why is it always the left wing cracks that try and do something about these problem areas around the world. Why can't I find people that think like I do? I'm right of center, I think the Ariana Huffington is a POS but I can't find a group that isn't left leaning that gives a crap about these places where genocide is happening or getting ready to happen.
Maybe you guys can help me understand or set me in the right direction because I'm pretty frustrated right now.
Tuesday, December 7, 2010
It begins...
Tonight is my Friday... I'm home, I've eaten my dinner (ham, scalloped potatoes, corn... thank you Liz), I'm in my "comfies" and I'm bellying up to the DVD to finish the Pacific series. If not all of it tonight, then by lunch tomorrow.
So, post your posits whenever you like... I'll be ready.
So, post your posits whenever you like... I'll be ready.
"I've never been to Heaven, but I've been to Oklahoma."
- the words of the immortal Elvis Presley (who it turned out, was mortal after all).
I've also never made a movie, mini series, nor been to war. That being said -
The Pacific ... Ryan's take:
I liked the series. I didn't love it. I liked it. Now lets establish something from the very start of my "review." I am not at odds with the story, in any way shape or form. My criticism is reserved exclusively for the story telling. The presentation. I realize that the primary sources, as listed by the producers, were "With The Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa", by Eugene Sledge, and "A Pillow for My Helmet", by Robert Leckie. And if you think I'm criticizing their memoirs, you're out of your mind. I should also note that it's probably the height of hubris for little ol' me to criticize Spielberg, Hanks, and their affiliated directors on movie making, but it's my blog, so I am. I should also readily admit that my template for how a war movie/series should be made is Band of Brothers, and you don't have to be Spielberg to know that's a fair standard (nor do I need Ebert to tell me The Godfather was a good movie, if you get my drift). And given The Pacific is from the same creators, I can only assume Band of Brothers was their template for war-story-telling as well.
These 3 are presented in ascending order:
1.) My smallest beef. I really enjoyed and thought it impacting to have various episodes of BoB narrated by the characters, in closing each episode (ala Winters in Day of Days and Points / Webb in The Last Patrol) and sometimes throughout (Lipton in the woods over looking Foy). They didn't do that in The Pacific, at all. If you pushed "play with historical background" you got Hanks' 3 minute history lesson (which was fine, don't get me wrong), but it didn't have near the impact, cohesiveness, and most importantly the intimacy afforded the viewer as the character in-story narration does, in my opinion.
2.) I had to decide whether it was this or the next one I was bothered by most (in fact I'm still not a 100% which it is), but I had to choose for the purposes of the post, so here it is: Band of Brothers was very, very "frontline-centric." If you think about the series, after the initial episode (in which the Sobel dichotomy was priceless, the Friends guy really did a great job) the entire story line takes place within yards, if not feet, of the front line of battle (for Easy Company and the 101st). Even Winter's leave to Paris was a vehicle for telling his recent combat at the crossroads. In The Pacific there was a lot, and I mean a ton, of "off the line" scenes, entire story lines in fact. Case in point - Basilone was the most decorated Marine of the War. So I'm curious as to why I get a half hour story line of Leckie banging the Greek-Aussie hottie, and the battle/assault surrounding Basilone's death gets all of 5 minutes of air time. Do you see what I'm saying? The two lads he trained (exclusively, for some time before the company arrived), got maybe 5 - 10 seconds of reel time reaction to their Sarge's death, but Leckie's and the Aussie's break up got a full 3 minutes or so. I don't get that. The Melbourne story line, Bassilone banging starlets in 5 star hotels, that's all nice, it's fine, but that is not what I expected, nor wanted with BoB as my template. And given there must be unlimited frontline story lines available for the 1st Marines, I was dissapointed the producers didn't opt to spend more time on them.
3.) Cut and paste story telling ... there were three distinct story lines, revolving around 3 men in The Pacific. That means in a 10 episode series the viewer is getting roughly 3.3 episodes for each story. Any one of which could have been a 10 part series in and of itself. Now I realize that Band of Brothers was about a very specific Company, and The Pacific was an attempt to portray, well, THE Pacific theater. Only, that's nearly impossible in 10 episodes ... in 1000. They had to cut off what they wanted to portray at some point - for instance, there were no Naval battles in "The Pacific", of any kind, no sailor's fighting. And that was certainly an aspect of that front, to say the least. And my point is I don't think they made the cut off narrow enough. You can portray the entire Marine effort through the story of one core (corps) group of men, as was done in B.o.B, without having to constantly cut and go to a completely different story line on the other side of the planet. They used only one book, Ambrose' work, for the European front. They used two for The Pacific, and tossed in a short biography of Basilone. And that's exactly what it felt like to me, "tossed in", choppy. They attempted to mesh story lines that should have been told on their own, making the entire arrangement feel "forced" to the viewer (at least this viewer).
I would have much preferred (again, my opinion) that they picked one of the three story lines, and let us get to know that man and his comrades the way we got to know Easy Company. I like to see the word play, the back and forth and merciless mocking of the guys with each other. The Pacific was largely minus that (save Sledgehammer & Snafu, but even then in a limited amount) because the time wasn't taken to let us (the viewer) get to "know" the men the way it was done with Easy. The entire story was almost an inner dialogue of 3 seperate men, only without the words.
At any rate, I did like The Pacific. The story itself wouldn't allow for anything less. But I'm near heart broken that I didn't love it ... I sorely wanted to.
And if this puts me out of the running for "favorite uncle", I understand.
I've also never made a movie, mini series, nor been to war. That being said -
The Pacific ... Ryan's take:
I liked the series. I didn't love it. I liked it. Now lets establish something from the very start of my "review." I am not at odds with the story, in any way shape or form. My criticism is reserved exclusively for the story telling. The presentation. I realize that the primary sources, as listed by the producers, were "With The Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa", by Eugene Sledge, and "A Pillow for My Helmet", by Robert Leckie. And if you think I'm criticizing their memoirs, you're out of your mind. I should also note that it's probably the height of hubris for little ol' me to criticize Spielberg, Hanks, and their affiliated directors on movie making, but it's my blog, so I am. I should also readily admit that my template for how a war movie/series should be made is Band of Brothers, and you don't have to be Spielberg to know that's a fair standard (nor do I need Ebert to tell me The Godfather was a good movie, if you get my drift). And given The Pacific is from the same creators, I can only assume Band of Brothers was their template for war-story-telling as well.
These 3 are presented in ascending order:
1.) My smallest beef. I really enjoyed and thought it impacting to have various episodes of BoB narrated by the characters, in closing each episode (ala Winters in Day of Days and Points / Webb in The Last Patrol) and sometimes throughout (Lipton in the woods over looking Foy). They didn't do that in The Pacific, at all. If you pushed "play with historical background" you got Hanks' 3 minute history lesson (which was fine, don't get me wrong), but it didn't have near the impact, cohesiveness, and most importantly the intimacy afforded the viewer as the character in-story narration does, in my opinion.
2.) I had to decide whether it was this or the next one I was bothered by most (in fact I'm still not a 100% which it is), but I had to choose for the purposes of the post, so here it is: Band of Brothers was very, very "frontline-centric." If you think about the series, after the initial episode (in which the Sobel dichotomy was priceless, the Friends guy really did a great job) the entire story line takes place within yards, if not feet, of the front line of battle (for Easy Company and the 101st). Even Winter's leave to Paris was a vehicle for telling his recent combat at the crossroads. In The Pacific there was a lot, and I mean a ton, of "off the line" scenes, entire story lines in fact. Case in point - Basilone was the most decorated Marine of the War. So I'm curious as to why I get a half hour story line of Leckie banging the Greek-Aussie hottie, and the battle/assault surrounding Basilone's death gets all of 5 minutes of air time. Do you see what I'm saying? The two lads he trained (exclusively, for some time before the company arrived), got maybe 5 - 10 seconds of reel time reaction to their Sarge's death, but Leckie's and the Aussie's break up got a full 3 minutes or so. I don't get that. The Melbourne story line, Bassilone banging starlets in 5 star hotels, that's all nice, it's fine, but that is not what I expected, nor wanted with BoB as my template. And given there must be unlimited frontline story lines available for the 1st Marines, I was dissapointed the producers didn't opt to spend more time on them.
3.) Cut and paste story telling ... there were three distinct story lines, revolving around 3 men in The Pacific. That means in a 10 episode series the viewer is getting roughly 3.3 episodes for each story. Any one of which could have been a 10 part series in and of itself. Now I realize that Band of Brothers was about a very specific Company, and The Pacific was an attempt to portray, well, THE Pacific theater. Only, that's nearly impossible in 10 episodes ... in 1000. They had to cut off what they wanted to portray at some point - for instance, there were no Naval battles in "The Pacific", of any kind, no sailor's fighting. And that was certainly an aspect of that front, to say the least. And my point is I don't think they made the cut off narrow enough. You can portray the entire Marine effort through the story of one core (corps) group of men, as was done in B.o.B, without having to constantly cut and go to a completely different story line on the other side of the planet. They used only one book, Ambrose' work, for the European front. They used two for The Pacific, and tossed in a short biography of Basilone. And that's exactly what it felt like to me, "tossed in", choppy. They attempted to mesh story lines that should have been told on their own, making the entire arrangement feel "forced" to the viewer (at least this viewer).
I would have much preferred (again, my opinion) that they picked one of the three story lines, and let us get to know that man and his comrades the way we got to know Easy Company. I like to see the word play, the back and forth and merciless mocking of the guys with each other. The Pacific was largely minus that (save Sledgehammer & Snafu, but even then in a limited amount) because the time wasn't taken to let us (the viewer) get to "know" the men the way it was done with Easy. The entire story was almost an inner dialogue of 3 seperate men, only without the words.
At any rate, I did like The Pacific. The story itself wouldn't allow for anything less. But I'm near heart broken that I didn't love it ... I sorely wanted to.
And if this puts me out of the running for "favorite uncle", I understand.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Please... don't misunderstand me here...
The scenes of the battle at Peleliu are spectacular... without going strictly first-person POV (point of view), it shows just how unbelievably confused and terrifying jungle combat can be, and WAS, for soldiers that are not used to the environment.
Having seen both the Melbourne and Basilone episodes, I can completely agree with Jambo... too much background, not enough "in the war" material. My concerns are with the scattered scenes where specific marines are shown suffering that "dark night of the soul". The one that hit me hardest was Sledge after the Peleliu battle.
You've both seen it numerous times to my once... so surely you see the rather obvious and pointed connection between Sledge wanting to take out some gold teeth from a dead Jap... and his father's warning about allowing his soul to be ripped out through the horrors of combat. Sledge was willing to lose a part of his soul... not for the value of the gold teeth, but because the pain of watching the suffering and blood shed was getting to be too much. If he did what those other "seemingly" heartless marines did (he didn't see them losing any sleep over pulling gold teeth from a not-quite-dead Jap, did he?) then perhaps he'd be able to "cope" the way they were.
The character/marine that stops Sledge from pulling the teeth seems to want him to stop because the act is "bad"... but it turns out it is bad because the bodies have germs that the divisional medical officer warned them all about (the entrenched Japs were riddled with typhiod fever and thyphus because of their compromised drinking water supplies and lack of sanitation), not because it is a morally reprehensible act of a barberous beast.
A true event (or nearly so) I'm sure... but it doesn't paint an accurate picture of what the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of the Pacific theater were all about, I'm sure too.
Look... I'm tickled to death with this series. The distractions of the "extra" experiences (non combat, that is) not withstanding, the actual battle scenes may even beat those of BOB... so don't think I'm down on Pacific... just making some observations for conversation's sake.
By the way... my laptop is now downstairs and plugged in, but I'm sharing time with Liz and Jake, so if there is a delay in a response here (or anywhere else) from me, don't think I'm not paying attention, okay?
Having seen both the Melbourne and Basilone episodes, I can completely agree with Jambo... too much background, not enough "in the war" material. My concerns are with the scattered scenes where specific marines are shown suffering that "dark night of the soul". The one that hit me hardest was Sledge after the Peleliu battle.
You've both seen it numerous times to my once... so surely you see the rather obvious and pointed connection between Sledge wanting to take out some gold teeth from a dead Jap... and his father's warning about allowing his soul to be ripped out through the horrors of combat. Sledge was willing to lose a part of his soul... not for the value of the gold teeth, but because the pain of watching the suffering and blood shed was getting to be too much. If he did what those other "seemingly" heartless marines did (he didn't see them losing any sleep over pulling gold teeth from a not-quite-dead Jap, did he?) then perhaps he'd be able to "cope" the way they were.
The character/marine that stops Sledge from pulling the teeth seems to want him to stop because the act is "bad"... but it turns out it is bad because the bodies have germs that the divisional medical officer warned them all about (the entrenched Japs were riddled with typhiod fever and thyphus because of their compromised drinking water supplies and lack of sanitation), not because it is a morally reprehensible act of a barberous beast.
A true event (or nearly so) I'm sure... but it doesn't paint an accurate picture of what the soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines of the Pacific theater were all about, I'm sure too.
Look... I'm tickled to death with this series. The distractions of the "extra" experiences (non combat, that is) not withstanding, the actual battle scenes may even beat those of BOB... so don't think I'm down on Pacific... just making some observations for conversation's sake.
By the way... my laptop is now downstairs and plugged in, but I'm sharing time with Liz and Jake, so if there is a delay in a response here (or anywhere else) from me, don't think I'm not paying attention, okay?
"Contact left!"
"No shit!"
Jambo's right, that's probably the best line of the series, hehe.
Now this is interesting.
Titus wrote: " ... there are aspects of this series that I can say I question... not in accuracy or content, but in format and presentation."
Titus used almost the exact phraseology that I did when addressing my concerns to Jambo about the series via text, although it appears to apply to a different "beef", if you will. I'm itching to address my 3 tier "concern" with the series, but I refuse to skew Titus' viewing, as no one did this to Jambo nor I. Don't get worked up Jambo, I still liked the series, but these points must be addressed once Titus finishes, post Wednesday (I feel kinda bad, I hope rushing to finish doesn't impact your enjoyment, Titus - take your time man).
But I'll briefly address what's been broached thus far ...
"I will hold my final opinion to the end of the series ... I'd hate to think that the whole series is going to pass and leave "me" (the general audience) with the possible impression that the effects of combat stress on the individual Marine were as debilitating and lasting as this program has (so far) presented."
Were I making a WWII (or any war movie/series), perhaps the most difficult aspect would be how much to focus on the mentally debilitating effects of war. I suppose that using pure numbers of those diagnosed with PTSD would help. I did notice, as did Titus, the increased focus (as compared to our template, B.o.B) of this aspect of warfare within The Pacific. I can only assume that in their research Hanks & company discovered that due to the type of warfare waged in the Pacific that the occurrences of PTSD (during service & upon the return home) were more frequent then the European front (which makes total sense), and they wanted to demonstrate that. Did they focus too much? Perhaps (they're not done with that Titus, by the way). And I only say "perhaps" because for every second of reel time they spend addressing debilitation, it's just that much less time available to demonstrate in-action heorism, or what they "did", versus how they "felt", if that makes sense (not to discount how the boys felt, that's intricate and very worthy of exploration, we're talking "what is the right balance" in telling this story, and did this series properly strike it).
2 other points that don't jump the gun on where Titus is in the series -
Titus was spot on - this series did do an excellent job in portraying the enemy from a US Marine's perspective (I'd say "soldier", but Leckie would get pissed). The Japanese in this series are almost mythological in their existence - talked about, almost never seen, existing only behind the brush line, lurking within trees and jungle, attacking almost exclusively at night (initially anyway), only seeing their faces in short bursts of machine gun fire light. It was truly "alien", they might as well have been fighting Martians as far our boys were concerned. A much different scenario then say, Malarkey chatting with his in-state neighbor in the Wehrmacht, or the surrender scenes in "Points."
Secondly, my favorite storyline is Sledgehammer & Snafu, hands down.
Jambo's right, that's probably the best line of the series, hehe.
Now this is interesting.
Titus wrote: " ... there are aspects of this series that I can say I question... not in accuracy or content, but in format and presentation."
Titus used almost the exact phraseology that I did when addressing my concerns to Jambo about the series via text, although it appears to apply to a different "beef", if you will. I'm itching to address my 3 tier "concern" with the series, but I refuse to skew Titus' viewing, as no one did this to Jambo nor I. Don't get worked up Jambo, I still liked the series, but these points must be addressed once Titus finishes, post Wednesday (I feel kinda bad, I hope rushing to finish doesn't impact your enjoyment, Titus - take your time man).
But I'll briefly address what's been broached thus far ...
"I will hold my final opinion to the end of the series ... I'd hate to think that the whole series is going to pass and leave "me" (the general audience) with the possible impression that the effects of combat stress on the individual Marine were as debilitating and lasting as this program has (so far) presented."
Were I making a WWII (or any war movie/series), perhaps the most difficult aspect would be how much to focus on the mentally debilitating effects of war. I suppose that using pure numbers of those diagnosed with PTSD would help. I did notice, as did Titus, the increased focus (as compared to our template, B.o.B) of this aspect of warfare within The Pacific. I can only assume that in their research Hanks & company discovered that due to the type of warfare waged in the Pacific that the occurrences of PTSD (during service & upon the return home) were more frequent then the European front (which makes total sense), and they wanted to demonstrate that. Did they focus too much? Perhaps (they're not done with that Titus, by the way). And I only say "perhaps" because for every second of reel time they spend addressing debilitation, it's just that much less time available to demonstrate in-action heorism, or what they "did", versus how they "felt", if that makes sense (not to discount how the boys felt, that's intricate and very worthy of exploration, we're talking "what is the right balance" in telling this story, and did this series properly strike it).
2 other points that don't jump the gun on where Titus is in the series -
Titus was spot on - this series did do an excellent job in portraying the enemy from a US Marine's perspective (I'd say "soldier", but Leckie would get pissed). The Japanese in this series are almost mythological in their existence - talked about, almost never seen, existing only behind the brush line, lurking within trees and jungle, attacking almost exclusively at night (initially anyway), only seeing their faces in short bursts of machine gun fire light. It was truly "alien", they might as well have been fighting Martians as far our boys were concerned. A much different scenario then say, Malarkey chatting with his in-state neighbor in the Wehrmacht, or the surrender scenes in "Points."
Secondly, my favorite storyline is Sledgehammer & Snafu, hands down.
Combat fatigue
Titus, did I miss something? You asked if the effects of combat were as debilitating as portrayed? I must be missing something. You need to clarify that thought.
The Pacific
This is not the first time I've seen the episodes, so I can discuss them at length. My criticism of "The Pacific" is limited to only this:
Wasted episodes.
B.O.B. from start to finish has zero wasted episodes. From Tacoa to the Eagle's Nest, every episode is pertinent, necessary and riveting.
Do we as viewers NEED to see Melbourne? No. Do we as viewers NEED to see the romantic aspects of Basilone's life? No. I understand why Iwo Jima is so limited in the telling: no spoilers here. But there are two entire episodes that are for the most part unnecessary. THAT is the fundamental difference between Pacific and B.O.B. and my issues with the series.
So does that make B.O.B. qualitatively better?
NO.
I still feel without question that B.O.B. AND the Pacific need to be viewed as one 20 episode series, and together mark the DEFINITIVE work on narrative true to life storytelling concerning WW2. Freaking awesome.
Wasted episodes.
B.O.B. from start to finish has zero wasted episodes. From Tacoa to the Eagle's Nest, every episode is pertinent, necessary and riveting.
Do we as viewers NEED to see Melbourne? No. Do we as viewers NEED to see the romantic aspects of Basilone's life? No. I understand why Iwo Jima is so limited in the telling: no spoilers here. But there are two entire episodes that are for the most part unnecessary. THAT is the fundamental difference between Pacific and B.O.B. and my issues with the series.
So does that make B.O.B. qualitatively better?
NO.
I still feel without question that B.O.B. AND the Pacific need to be viewed as one 20 episode series, and together mark the DEFINITIVE work on narrative true to life storytelling concerning WW2. Freaking awesome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
