War films 2007 - Katherine Monk( Vancouver Sun) discusses

Post Reply
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I think it was considered Anti-War just because of its negative depiction of combat and death. It was more realistic than say The Green Berets which may have had realism attached, but was considerably more patriotic. I think that's the distinction here. Anti-War typically means not taking an overtly patriotic view of war and its repercussions.

Thus Saving Private Ryan: Patriotic. The Thin Red Line: Anti-War.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
abcinyvr
Graduate
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 5:58 pm
Location: Vancouver Canada
Contact:

Post by abcinyvr »

QUOTE:
During the actual years of American involvement (1963-1975), very few movies dealing directly with Vietnam hit the screen, and the ones that did -- such as The Green Berets (1968) -- tended to be thinly veiled militaristic propaganda or tinny tributes to the fighting man and the military itself.
Katherine Monk, The Vancouver Sun

Richard Roeper said something similar, indicating that the filmakers waited until the Vietnam War was over before making films about it. Really? As if any studio was going to bankroll an anit-Vietnam War film while the troops were still there.

QUOTE:
Oliver Stone's Platoon issues the same trumpet blare saluting brave men of blood and bullets, as does Ted Kotcheff's First Blood.
Katherine Monk, The Vancouver Sun

Was Platoon not considered to be an anti-war film when it came out? Or did I just see it as such?
cam
Assistant
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Coquitlam BC Canada

Post by cam »

Here is a good article on this year's war films--all liberal, so far.

http://www.canada.com/vancouv....143f954
Post Reply

Return to “2000 - 2007”