Miscellaneous Movie Musings

[innerSpaceman]

Well, Ken Watanabe is hardly an unknown actor. And I'm frankly sick of all the ballyhoo about the film being in Japanese. Guess what, so are lots of Japanese films ... and it would have been just beyond stupid to make a gritty war film from the Japanese perspective with the cast speaking English ... in clippped British accents no less.


Letters was a fine film, but stereotypical galore ... whereas the Flags companion piece was, imo, shamefully overlooked - and far more interesting in perspective, story, and storytelling.

[Alex]

Haven't seen flags yet. And the reason Marshall used Chinese actors was because they didn't think there were any Japanese actors with enough face recognition. Yes, Watanabe is somewhat known, but he's also barely in the movie.

And, I'm sorry, but I think it takes some artistic balls to make a movie in a language you don't speak. And I think those are precisely the artistic balls that Rob Marshall lacks (and if the studio insisted, he should have passed or at least insisted on Japanese actors). Why go with clipped British accents when you could go with clipped Chinese accents?

When you say stereotypical, do you mean stereotypical war movie or stereotyping of the Japanese? If the latter I found it more restrained than most and also pretty accurate in attitudes as I hear them second hand through Lani (who's father applied to be a kamikaze pilot). Say what you will, but the circumstances under which Saigo fled Suribachi is not something you'd see in an American war movie.

Haven't seen Flags yet so I have no problem with the thought that it is better than Letters (though you're the first person I know that has seen both that thinks so) and has been overlooked.

Personally, I'm still somewhat burned out on war movies and the reason I saw this one is because it is nominated for best picture (Babel is no longer playing anywhere near me) and because it was the only thing within 25 miles that I haven't seen and have any interest in (at the last minute I almost went to Ghost Rider instead).

I definitely would not put Letters in the top five for the year (The Queen was already on my list of the five that should be in line behind Children of Men and now Letters is back there as well.) Both Scorcese and Greengrass are more deserving for director (and I'm with you that Greengrass should have it, though I'm ok with Scorcese winning).

The screenwriting categories still continue to confuse me. Letters credits source material (the letters of General Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe)) and is an original screenplay while Borat is mostly unscripted and is still an adapted screenplay. Anyway, Letters doesn't come out on top for this one, either as I'd give it to Pan's Labyrinth if I had my druthers.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Yes, Watanabe is somewhat known, but he's also barely in the movie.

Oh, heheh, I was referring to Watanabe in Lettters from Iwo Jima, forgetting that he was also in Memoirs of a Geisha. The latter was a frothy piece of period soap opera, so I competely forgive it for being in English. It was a confection. The war movie required much more realism.

And so...

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

those are precisely the artistic balls that Rob Marshall lacks

... I don't think Marshall lacked balls at all. He (or the studio) simply knew the audience for Geisha ... quite different from the audience for a bitter war film.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

When you say stereotypical, do you mean stereotypical war movie or stereotyping of the Japanese?

I mean the characters, actually. Though I grant their reality, for purportedly being based on actual letters, the Watanabe character could hardly have been more stereotypically noble samurai, and the humble Baker similarly so for the lowly infantryman with whom the audience is meant to identify.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Haven't seen Flags yet so I have no problem with the thought that it is better than Letters (though you're the first person I know that has seen both that thinks so) and has been overlooked.

I don't want to insult anybody by insisting they were wrong and I am right when it comes to "better," but Flags was far more ambitious and audacious in its storytelling, and I grant it more props for perhaps falling short of a loftier goal than I do Letters for nailing a more pedestrian goal.

Originally Posted by Alex Stroup

Personally, I'm still somewhat burned out on war movies...

Which is why I can wholeheartedly recommend Flags of our Fathers (now available on DVD). It's not really a war movie, per se. It's NOT merely the American side of the battle depicted in Letters from Iwo Jima. The war scenes and battle stuff are sparing, shown fleetingly in flashback. Rather, it's the story of a happy, peppy war bonds tour, its ironies and creepiness in relation to the war it supported, and the toll both the tour and the public relations fraud of the iconic flag-raising image took on the men who participated.






.

[katiesue]

Yay - I am not alone. Madz really wants the CD now so I'll be listening to it quite a bit I'm sure.

[Ghoulish Delight]

The other night we caught the bulk of Ken Burns' piece on the Brooklyn Bridge.

The man is just a master at what he does. I can understand why people might get bored as they are definitely long winded and formulaic. But I have to admit that I'm a sucker for it. I watched the entire Civil War series when it first aired, and much of the baseball one. This one was nice because it was self-contained. A single documentary rather than a long drawn out series.

In a city on the scale of modern day New York, it's easy to overlook the Brooklyn Bridge for the truly monumental marvel that it was. Burns did a magnificent job of presenting the enormity of the project, the impact on the city (and nation), and really illustrated why the bridge was such a talked about thing.

It made me really really happy that we're planning on being in New York later this year. It also made me want to see a whole lot of movies. Both informative like this documentary as well as movies featuring New York. So, to the NY folks here, give me the short list of "must see" NY movies (preferably not ALL Woody Allen).

And, for that matter, we'll need a similar list for Chicago. Anyone?

ETA: Oh yes, the documentary also had me thinking about how pathetic SoCal is. We have zero monuments. True, public works, spectacular monuments. And don't even THINK of calling the Hollywood sign a monument.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And, for that matter, we'll need a similar list for Chicago. Anyone?

Oprah?

[Stan4dSteph]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

And, for that matter, we'll need a similar list for Chicago. Anyone?

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

They filmed at my friend's school in a suburb outside the city.

[Alex]

My favorite Chicago-based movie:

Medium Cool

Runners up:

Risky Business (you can recreate the scene on the el near the end of the movie)

The Untouchables and Thief to balance out the mob movies on the New York City list.

[mousepod]

Off the top of my head, I'd recommend:
- the Ric Burns PBS documentary on NY is great, for one
- almost any Scorsese flick (Taxi Driver, Mean Streets, After Hours etc)
- Breakfast at Tiffany's
- Rosemary's Baby
- The Hot Rock

... I'm sure there are one or two more...

[Strangler Lewis]

Age of Innocence
Gangs of New York (both Scorsese)
King Kong (original)
You've Got Mail
Falling in Love
Stewart Little/Stewart Little 2
Eloise at the Plaza
New York Stories (Scorsese/Allen/Coppola)
Bowery Boys
Ghostbusters