Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:17 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie 
Author Message
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
http://www.avclub.com/articles/new-movi ... :2:Default

Research shows that when mass killers get heavy national media exposure, it invariably leads to copycat crimes, and that delusions of publicity and celebrity are an almost guaranteed factor in mass killings.

So, yeah. Not sure this is a great idea.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:18 am
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 1:49 am
Posts: 109
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Ugh.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:21 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 10:42 pm
Posts: 1431
Location: Bangkok
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Yeah this news is rather distressing. Barely months apart.

On another topic, god how I love A.V. Club's Sean O'Neal's hilariously snarky reporting of news, especially if it's the issue along the line of "what were they thinking???", like this news, Paula Deen, or recent Big Brother stuff. Scathing like no others. The "No directors or Wahlbergs are currently attached" line lifts my mood up a bit from the horrible news.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:20 am
Profile
Online
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3769
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
I'm not totally against the idea of a movie about the event, but it's definitely WAAAAYYYYYY too soon to be even considering it right now, I remember when United 93 and World Trade Center first came out and people were debating if 5 years was too soon. I say the filmmakers should at least wait a year or two before greenlighting that film(same goes for the planned Sandy Hook film)


Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:24 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1815
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Vexer wrote:
I'm not totally against the idea of a movie about the event, but it's definitely WAAAAYYYYYY too soon to be even considering it right now, I remember when United 93 and World Trade Center first came out and people were debating if 5 years was too soon. I say the filmmakers should at least wait a year or two before greenlighting that film(same goes for the planned Sandy Hook film)


The Sandy Hook film should never get made and hopefully won't. The Boston Marathon bombing could make a good movie, but I agree they should wait and not jump on it as a money-grab. Also, hopefully whoever does it can go a little deeper and more sophisticated than Bigelow did with Zero Dark Thirty. I'm not interested in a fake documentary. If they're going to make a movie about it, make it a meaningful movie. Transcend the material. I doubt a movie would tell us anything we don't already know, it'll likely be a waste.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:05 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
You know, I will say that (much as I love the AV Club's take on it, as i usually do) we all said the exact same damn thing when United 93 was coming out. Well, maybe not us literally, as the Reelviews forum didn't exist, but the film world

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:15 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1592
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
I have no problem with a movie about it if it's done respectfully. If it's handled the way United 93 and World Trade Center were, good. But if it uses it as simply a backdrop for a love story complete with a Faith Hill song over the closing credits and tries to sell itself as being baout teh bombing, no good.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:45 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
JamesKunz wrote:
You know, I will say that (much as I love the AV Club's take on it, as i usually do) we all said the exact same damn thing when United 93 was coming out. Well, maybe not us literally, as the Reelviews forum didn't exist, but the film world

I still kind of feel that way about United 93.

But the two also aren't quite equitable. The pathology of the organized terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks and the pathology of the disgruntled, delusional kids who carry out these homegrown mass killings run on different fuels. One of the fuels that the latter runs on is publicity. As far as media glory goes, it doesn't get much better than having a movie made about something you did. Forget the cover of Newsweek, forget the 24 hour dittohead news channels--mass killing is going big-budget.

Around the same time as the Sandy Hook shooting, a man in China stabbed 22 people in a mass event. (Fortunately, all the victims lived--almost certainly because he brought a knife instead of a gun.) When asked why he did it, his answer was that he wanted to be on TV. Maybe he wasn't setting his sights high enough.

My argument isn't anything to do with quality. I guess it's more about social responsibility. We already know that our TV journalists don't have a shred of it. I had better hopes for our corrupt, plutocratic film industry.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:32 am
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Ken wrote:
JamesKunz wrote:
You know, I will say that (much as I love the AV Club's take on it, as i usually do) we all said the exact same damn thing when United 93 was coming out. Well, maybe not us literally, as the Reelviews forum didn't exist, but the film world

I still kind of feel that way about United 93.

But the two also aren't quite equitable. The pathology of the organized terrorists who committed the 9/11 attacks and the pathology of the disgruntled, delusional kids who carry out these homegrown mass killings run on different fuels. One of the fuels that the latter runs on is publicity. As far as media glory goes, it doesn't get much better than having a movie made about something you did. Forget the cover of Newsweek, forget the 24 hour dittohead news channels--mass killing is going big-budget.

Around the same time as the Sandy Hook shooting, a man in China stabbed 22 people in a mass event. (Fortunately, all the victims lived--almost certainly because he brought a knife instead of a gun.) When asked why he did it, his answer was that he wanted to be on TV. Maybe he wasn't setting his sights high enough.

My argument isn't anything to do with quality. I guess it's more about social responsibility. We already know that our TV journalists don't have a shred of it. I had better hopes for our corrupt, plutocratic film industry.


Alright I respect that completely.

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:56 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1815
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Quote:
When asked why he did it, his answer was that he wanted to be on TV. Maybe he wasn't setting his sights high enough.


This makes a good argument against a Boston movie. The living perpetrator would probably enjoy the spotlight.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:19 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 5:38 pm
Posts: 263
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
I'm not sure I see the point of such a movie. The details of the story were pretty well reported at the time. Maybe not 100% accurately, and maybe there are some myths and misconceptions about what exactly happened, but what exactly can one expect to bring to the table at this time regarding the event? What perspective would make it worthwhile? What would be the focus? Are they going to focus on the victims? The perpetuators? Honestly, in my opinion there's little about the story that can be turned into a focused, compelling narrative. With perhaps the part about the extended lock-down of an entire city, there's little here that could be used to create anything cinematic.

I hope it doesn't get made at all.
-Jeremy

_________________
My Blog: Queering the Closet


Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:55 am
Profile WWW
Online
Auteur
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:02 pm
Posts: 3769
Location: Zion, IL
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
thered47 wrote:
I'm not sure I see the point of such a movie. The details of the story were pretty well reported at the time. Maybe not 100% accurately, and maybe there are some myths and misconceptions about what exactly happened, but what exactly can one expect to bring to the table at this time regarding the event? What perspective would make it worthwhile? What would be the focus? Are they going to focus on the victims? The perpetuators? Honestly, in my opinion there's little about the story that can be turned into a focused, compelling narrative. With perhaps the part about the extended lock-down of an entire city, there's little here that could be used to create anything cinematic.

I hope it doesn't get made at all.
-Jeremy

I could see it getting made-for-TV film, but that's about it, I don't think such a film would ever get a theatrical release as it just wouldn't be that profitable. People would be too turned off to pay to see it, even though i'm not against the idea, I still probably would never see that film.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 12:12 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Ken wrote:
My argument isn't anything to do with quality. I guess it's more about social responsibility. We already know that our TV journalists don't have a shred of it. I had better hopes for our corrupt, plutocratic film industry.


I tend to agree, so I'm playing Keanu Reeves here more than a little bit, but is it possible to divorce the movie from its quality? I mean, what if someone makes a Boston Marathon Bombing movie about the idea of social responsibility and how we're being let down as a country by our media? That probably isn't the most insightful thing an artist can say right now since it seems to be common knowledge, but there's at least some worth in that, no? What if the filmmakers make a point to go out of their way to condemn the way things like this are handled and glorified? Would that make it any more "ok"?


Wed Jul 10, 2013 4:46 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
The medium is the message. If you make a war film with an anti-war message that happens to include lots of action-packed "good guys vs. bad guys" battle scenes, it's not really an anti-war film, because people are going to engage with it emotionally and viscerally more than they engage with it cerebrally.

The only way to be sure that these killers aren't glorified is to keep their names and the details of their deeds out of the public consciousness, except to the bare minimum extent necessary to keep the populace informed.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:02 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Ken wrote:
The medium is the message. If you make a war film with an anti-war message that happens to include lots of action-packed "good guys vs. bad guys" battle scenes, it's not really an anti-war film, because people are going to engage with it emotionally and viscerally more than they engage with it cerebrally.


But your example isn't really the medium being the message. That's more an issue with how the content is presented, not necessarily something inherent with the content being turned into a film. It is possible to making an anti-war film by showing acts of war, no?

Ken wrote:
The only way to be sure that these killers aren't glorified is to keep their names and the details of their deeds out of the public consciousness, except to the bare minimum extent necessary to keep the populace informed.


This I agree with, and it's why I have a hard time buying the existence of this film.

That said, we do live in a time where people seem to want to be informed of every little detail, whether that be the minutiae surrounding a terrorist event, or what a celebrity had for dinner last night. There are countless numbers of ways to get your news, with all news reporting entities battling for viewers/readers/visitors. Simply reporting the bare minimum is a noble goal, but not particularly realistic in my eyes. People will go elsewhere to find out more, especially in the case of something as high profile and tragic as a terrorist bombing.


Wed Jul 10, 2013 5:20 pm
Profile
Critic
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2009 9:35 am
Posts: 7500
Location: Easton, MD
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
Ken wrote:
The medium is the message. If you make a war film with an anti-war message that happens to include lots of action-packed "good guys vs. bad guys" battle scenes, it's not really an anti-war film, because people are going to engage with it emotionally and viscerally more than they engage with it cerebrally.

The only way to be sure that these killers aren't glorified is to keep their names and the details of their deeds out of the public consciousness, except to the bare minimum extent necessary to keep the populace informed.


Quoting Marshall McLuhan, eh? In that case, I have no choice as a film fan (even though I think you *do* know what you're talking about) but to cite this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ8tKRlW3E

_________________
I'm lithe and fierce as a tiger


Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:02 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
PeachyPete wrote:
But your example isn't really the medium being the message. That's more an issue with how the content is presented, not necessarily something inherent with the content being turned into a film. It is possible to making an anti-war film by showing acts of war, no?

The presentation of the content (i.e. how the message is sent) is what is meant by medium. It does not simply mean the physical medium of film, though that's obviously a component of it. If I tell you a story by a campfire, the medium is my voice, but the medium is also my choice of words, my tonal modulation, and so on. The medium is the sum total of choices the messenger makes in the sending of the message--a medium literally being the intervening stuff that resides between one thing and another. In this case, between message and audience.

While I won't say it's impossible to dramatize scenes of war on film and have it successfully come off as anti-war, I will say that it's much less likely than we like to think. Our tendency is to aestheticize things--to make them look pretty, cool, artful, or otherwise exciting to our eyes and ears. To make it into a movie, we have to put a frame around it and transform it into something we'd be interested in as a cinematic experience.

As an experiment, forget what the characters are chattering about for a moment and focus on the way the images are assembled and tweaked, and remember that cinema is primarily a sensory medium, rather than a literary one. Keep this as a rule of thumb: that which appeals to the senses first is going to win out. Very often, the battle scenes in an ostensibly anti-war film are not made distinguishably different from those in a film that celebrates war heroes and razzes the enemy.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:28 pm
Profile
Cinematographer

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 8:09 pm
Posts: 724
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
JamesKunz wrote:
Quoting Marshall McLuhan, eh? In that case, I have no choice as a film fan (even though I think you *do* know what you're talking about) but to cite this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXJ8tKRlW3E


I don't even need to click on that to know that it's Annie Hall.

Now that I have clicked on it, I can leave that first sentence right where it is and not worry about looking like an idiot.

Ken wrote:
The presentation of the content (i.e. how the message is sent) is what is meant by medium. It does not simply mean the physical medium of film, though that's obviously a component of it. If I tell you a story by a campfire, the medium is my voice, but the medium is also my choice of words, my tonal modulation, and so on. The medium is the sum total of choices the messenger makes in the sending of the message--a medium literally being the intervening stuff that resides between one thing and another. In this case, between message and audience.


I understand what you're saying, I just think that line of thinking is a load of bunk. For one, there are too many elements of any medium that overlap between media to use something so simple to sum everything up. That said, I'll grant you that media are unique enough despite those overlaps to make the case. My big problem with this line of thinking is that it constricts what a medium can be. It's like saying white directors can't direct "black" movies, with the end game limiting white directors to "white" movies, black directors to "black" movies, etc. Sure, all movies use the same base techniques, so they all have something in common on some level. They essentially point a camera at stuff and create some kind of meaning by stringing those images together. There's just too much differentiation between how movies use those images to simplify it down to "the medium is the message" and call it a day.

Ken wrote:
While I won't say it's impossible to dramatize scenes of war on film and have it successfully come off as anti-war, I will say that it's much less likely than we like to think. Our tendency is to aestheticize things--to make them look pretty, cool, artful, or otherwise exciting to our eyes and ears. To make it into a movie, we have to put a frame around it and transform it into something we'd be interested in as a cinematic experience.

As an experiment, forget what the characters are chattering about for a moment and focus on the way the images are assembled and tweaked, and remember that cinema is primarily a sensory medium, rather than a literary one. Keep this as a rule of thumb: that which appeals to the senses first is going to win out. Very often, the battle scenes in an ostensibly anti-war film are not made distinguishably different from those in a film that celebrates war heroes and razzes the enemy.


The bolded is precisely my point. I don't disagree with anything you say here, and in the case of a Boston bombing movie think we're unlikely to get anything of real value, but, you know, it is a possiblity.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:01 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Boston Marathon Bombing: The Movie
PeachyPete wrote:
I understand what you're saying, I just think that line of thinking is a load of bunk. For one, there are too many elements of any medium that overlap between media to use something so simple to sum everything up. That said, I'll grant you that media are unique enough despite those overlaps to make the case. My big problem with this line of thinking is that it constricts what a medium can be. It's like saying white directors can't direct "black" movies, with the end game limiting white directors to "white" movies, black directors to "black" movies, etc. Sure, all movies use the same base techniques, so they all have something in common on some level. They essentially point a camera at stuff and create some kind of meaning by stringing those images together. There's just too much differentiation between how movies use those images to simplify it down to "the medium is the message" and call it a day.


In the bold portion, the latter is the simplest way to state the former. 10 different movies can tell the same story 10 different ways and get 10 different effects. That is why the medium is the message: what is said is indelibly received by the audience according to how it is said. That is the beginning and end of my meaning here. If that is constrictive, it is only in the same way that a tree is constricted from being a gorilla.

I'm not sure how you're defining white movies and black movies here, and I need to know that in order to understand how it's germane to the subject.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Jul 11, 2013 2:33 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Google [Bot], Vexer, Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr