Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Wed Jul 23, 2014 5:08 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
ACT OF VALOR 
Author Message
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
Oh was I? I'm glad you told me that :P

And what did you edit out? Something equally as uncalled for?

You're wrong about the "uncalled for" part. I guess that you're a person who isn't much for confrontations in real life, hence the disguised snarkiness with regards to your posts to me. I'm the target because I've clearly expressed my opinion of you in previous posts on this forum, making it clear that I don't have a high respect level for you or your opinions. I don't care, but be honest and direct about it, like the man that you're claiming to be. If you're going to continue being passive-aggressive, I'm going have to think that you're a woman.

Dragonbeard wrote:
Give me some credit for having taking your bullshit for this long before snapping slightly.

Yes, passive-aggressive types generally repress before letting out the feelings in a big explosion. Do yourself a favor: go and buy a stress ball, or start expressing your anger/depression more openly with others, perhaps a therapist. It will do you a lot of good in the long run, and you may not even require anti-depressant medication.

Dragonbeard wrote:
No I'm a hairy bearded dude. Sorry ;)

I'm going to go with "woman" for now, ok?

P.S.: To everyone else- enjoy the show.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:34 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
So anyway, allow me to elaborate a little more on my point:

The proper use of the term 'propaganda' would imply that the material in question is intending to influence, rather than inform. Although this isn't necessarily a negative, depending on the context it could be taken as such.
The problem with many war movies is that they DO exist to influence, usually on the anti side of things (the truth in this matter is irrelevant at this point). It feels almost too much to ask for a film maker to simply create a movie where war is depicted entirely from an objective standpoint, such as using the natural tension and action that comes from battlefield scenarios.
JB mentions the concept of 'white hats', which could be interpreted in two different ways: Either the supposed 'realities' of being a SEAL are removed purely to keep the movie entertaining, or this is in fact propaganda for the purpose of showing how painless it would be to do such a job (which is a total falsehood I would imagine!). Since this is entirely subjective however, such interpretations would require viewing and taking away your own experiences from the movie.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:38 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
So anyway, allow me to elaborate a little more on my point:

The proper use of the term 'propaganda' would imply that the material in question is intending to influence, rather than inform. Although this isn't necessarily a negative, depending on the context it could be taken as such.
The problem with many war movies is that they DO exist to influence, usually on the anti side of things (the truth in this matter is irrelevant at this point). It feels almost too much to ask for a film maker to simply create a movie where war is depicted entirely from an objective standpoint, such as using the natural tension and action that comes from battlefield scenarios.
JB mentions the concept of 'white hats', which could be interpreted in two different ways: Either the supposed 'realities' of being a SEAL are removed purely to keep the movie entertaining, or this is in fact propaganda for the purpose of showing how painless it would be to do such a job (which is a total falsehood I would imagine!). Since this is entirely subjective however, such interpretations would require viewing and taking away your own experiences from the movie.

Ah, so you really don't know what propaganda is either.

Propaganda: media intended to influence opinion towards a particular *position*, usually political. Anti-war films do not fit this criteria, as they tend to be *apolitical*. They do not glorify one side or the other in a war, they just send the message that war in general sucks. This isn't "propaganda" any more than a video talking about the bad effects of getting shot in the face with a Gatling gun is. In fact, one of the reasons propaganda is considered negative is because it encourages people to engage in activities that go against their well-being, such as war, by glorifying their political or social side in the conflict.

One characteristic of propaganda films is the tendency to show facts *selectively*. Act of Valor, based on JB's review, is rife with this (eg: not presenting any detailed facts about the soldiers involved, not showing them in any situations where they are committing acts of misconduct in war, etc.). Documentaries, on the other hand, focus on showing *all* of the facts- Restrepo is a great example of this.

Dragon, this is why I don't respect your opinions: you don't know what you're talking about.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 10:51 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Are you still talking?


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:00 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
Are you still talking?

What, I thought you liked the attention. ;)


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:01 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Dragonbeard wrote:
So anyway, allow me to elaborate a little more on my point:

The proper use of the term 'propaganda' would imply that the material in question is intending to influence, rather than inform. Although this isn't necessarily a negative, depending on the context it could be taken as such.
The problem with many war movies is that they DO exist to influence, usually on the anti side of things (the truth in this matter is irrelevant at this point). It feels almost too much to ask for a film maker to simply create a movie where war is depicted entirely from an objective standpoint, such as using the natural tension and action that comes from battlefield scenarios.
JB mentions the concept of 'white hats', which could be interpreted in two different ways: Either the supposed 'realities' of being a SEAL are removed purely to keep the movie entertaining, or this is in fact propaganda for the purpose of showing how painless it would be to do such a job (which is a total falsehood I would imagine!). Since this is entirely subjective however, such interpretations would require viewing and taking away your own experiences from the movie.

Ah, so you really don't know what propaganda is either.

Propaganda: media intended to influence opinion towards a particular *position*, usually political. Anti-war films do not fit this criteria, as they tend to be *apolitical*. They do not glorify one side or the other in a war, they just send the message that war in general sucks. This isn't "propaganda" any more than a video talking about the bad effects of getting shot in the face with a Gatling gun is. In fact, one of the reasons propaganda is considered negative is because it encourages people to engage in activities that go against their well-being, such as war, by glorifying their political or social side in the conflict.

One characteristic of propaganda films is the tendency to show facts *selectively*. Act of Valor, based on JB's review, is rife with this (eg: not presenting any detailed facts about the soldiers involved, not showing them in any situations where they are committing acts of misconduct in war, etc.). Documentaries, on the other hand, focus on showing *all* of the facts- Restrepo is a great example of this.

Dragon, this is why I don't respect your opinions: you don't know what you're talking about.

So what if the soldiers don't commit any acts of misconduct in the film? I fail to see how that's unrealistic, and I really don't see how that would help the film. Hurt Locker for all it's strengths had plenty of inaccuracies, for example, that scene with the one guy punching out his commanding officer most likely would NOT happen in real life, most soldiers are too discplined to even think about doing something like that. Also, i've heard that this film does have a rather brutal scene with the captain interrogating a captured enemy, so it isn't like the film is trying to whitewash everything. I think JB was a bit misguided in that notion, maybe we're just so used to seeing anti-war films that it comes as a shock to see any war film where the main characters and they're actions are presented as heroic.

P.S. The not-providing-detailed-facts thing has nothing to do with "selectivity" or anything like that, that was done for security reasons and that's why the names of the soldiers are not listed in the credits.


Last edited by Vexer on Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:24 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
No it's just half 3, not in a great place and I really don't feel like discussing the topic any further.

Sorry if my usual cheeky swagger has vanished but there we go. I'm backing out for now.

In the UK, we call this 'doing a France'.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:29 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Vexer wrote:
So what if the soldiers don't commit any acts of misconduct in the film? I fail to see how that's unrealistic, and I really don't see how that would help the film. Hurt Locker for all it's strengths had plenty of inaccuracies, for example, that scene with the one guy punching out his commanding officer most likely would NOT happen in real life, most soldiers are too discplined to even think about doing something like that. Also, i've heard that this film does have a rather brutal scene with the captain interrogating a captured enemy, so it isn't like the film is trying to whitewash everything. I think JB was a bit misguided in that notion, maybe we're just so used to seeing anti-war films that it comes as a shock to see any war film where the main characters and they're actions are presented as heroic.

To answer your question: if a film presents one side committing unethical acts (eg: torture) and not the other, it's lying by presenting facts selectively (re: telling half-truths) and thus isn't realistic. We know American forces can do and have done unethical things in war (eg: My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib Prison tortures, etc, etc.).

That scene in Hurt Locker where James was punched by Sanborn may not have been realistic, but it doesn't make that film propaganda.

Vexer wrote:
P.S. The not-providing-detailed-facts thing has nothing to do with "selectivity" or anything like that, that was done for security reasons and that's why the names of the soldiers are not listed in the credits.

That's a good point, but it makes the film less realistic simply because the audience never really gets to know the characters involved. That is another characteristic of propaganda films: the dehumanization of people either for the purpose of painting them as "heroes" or "villains", because it's easier for people to do bad things to others when they don't think of them as human.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:51 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
No it's just half 3, not in a great place and I really don't feel like discussing the topic any further.

Sorry if my usual cheeky swagger has vanished but there we go. I'm backing out for now.

In the UK, we call this 'doing a France'.

See you later, you cheese-eating surrender monkey (to quote Groundskeeper Willy from The Simpsons). ;)


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:53 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Ragnarok73 wrote:
We know American forces can do and have done unethical things in war (eg: My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib Prison tortures, etc, etc.).


Do we? Or was it just propaganda? ;)


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:54 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
We know American forces can do and have done unethical things in war (eg: My Lai Massacre, Abu Ghraib Prison tortures, etc, etc.).


Do we? Or was it just me thinking that it's propaganda after smoking some powerful Antigua ganja? ;)

Fixed that for you, boyo.


Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:58 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Propaganda or not, the first thing I thought of when I saw the trailer for this is "Hey, it's Call of Duty: The Movie!"

Anyone out there played the Metal Gear series of games? I love them in spite of (and at time because of) the lengthy cutscenes. JB mentions how movies today are starting to resemble high-end video games, well that series of games presented video games that felt like movies. I guess this means we've come full circle.


Thu Feb 23, 2012 12:08 am
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Gotta be honest this looks like it might be good, stupid, testosterone-fueled fun, something to get my action-junkie fix until the reportedly-neutered Expendables 2 comes along. Don't know that I'll be checking it out this weekend but I'll try and get around to it eventually.


Thu Feb 23, 2012 1:10 am
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
KRoss wrote:
Propaganda or not, the first thing I thought of when I saw the trailer for this is "Hey, it's Call of Duty: The Movie!"

Anyone out there played the Metal Gear series of games? I love them in spite of (and at time because of) the lengthy cutscenes. JB mentions how movies today are starting to resemble high-end video games, well that series of games presented video games that felt like movies. I guess this means we've come full circle.


That just makes it sound more appealing! I wish they had made a movie with the story from CoD 4, it was pretty damn gripping.

Cut scenes are fine, so long as they server a purpose beyond showing what the developer can do with rendered graphics (so about 1% of them). They should also be skippable (virtually none) or not eat too much into play time (ditto).

For all the criticisms, CoD took on a more Half Life approach to cut scenes by letting you view them from the same first person view as when you're playing the game.


Thu Feb 23, 2012 9:16 am
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Saw this late last night, and it was pretty damn awesome, the action scenes are some of the best i've ever seen in a film, the "you are there" feeling is invoked to perfect effect. It's truly fascinating to watch the SEALS in the heat of battle, they capture realism in a way real actors never could, as for they're acting skills, they were actually better then I was expecting, yeah they did occasionally sound a bit akward, but not enough to distract me(at the very least, they can act circles around "pretty-boy" actors like Robert Pattinson) i've heard complaints about the story being disjointed, but I didn't have any trouble following it.


I also didn't see this film as being "jingoistic" in any way like other critics are saying, as for any branch of the military, you have to be willing to sacrifice your life at the cost of saving others(which is played up in the ending) and no matter how cool the battle scenes look, the vast majority of people in the world are not prepared to make that kind of committment, and even if they are, they most likely won't even make it to training, only about 1% of the population are SEALS.


Sat Feb 25, 2012 1:46 pm
Assistant Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2009 10:44 pm
Posts: 81
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Saw this last night. The action was excellent, the acting....well. ;)

The big Seal kept reminding me of Mark Ruffalo.

One thing that stood out to me in this film vs. many others is how comfortable the Seal/actors were with friendly bullets/missiles flying right by them. They expected their own guys knew how to shoot, so they didn't flinch. That added some realism.

I liked it.

_________________
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
-P.J. O'Rourke


Sat Feb 25, 2012 3:22 pm
Profile
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Vexer wrote:
Saw this late last night, and it was pretty damn awesome, the action scenes are some of the best i've ever seen in a film, the "you are there" feeling is invoked to perfect effect. It's truly fascinating to watch the SEALS in the heat of battle, they capture realism in a way real actors never could, as for they're acting skills, they were actually better then I was expecting, yeah they did occasionally sound a bit akward, but not enough to distract me(at the very least, they can act circles around "pretty-boy" actors like Robert Pattinson) i've heard complaints about the story being disjointed, but I didn't have any trouble following it.


I also didn't see this film as being "jingoistic" in any way like other critics are saying, as for any branch of the military, you have to be willing to sacrifice your life at the cost of saving others(which is played up in the ending) and no matter how cool the battle scenes look, the vast majority of people in the world are not prepared to make that kind of committment, and even if they are, they most likely won't even make it to training, only about 1% of the population are SEALS.


Did you get the feeling it was trying to influence you? :)


Sun Feb 26, 2012 6:31 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Dragonbeard wrote:
Vexer wrote:
Saw this late last night, and it was pretty damn awesome, the action scenes are some of the best i've ever seen in a film, the "you are there" feeling is invoked to perfect effect. It's truly fascinating to watch the SEALS in the heat of battle, they capture realism in a way real actors never could, as for they're acting skills, they were actually better then I was expecting, yeah they did occasionally sound a bit akward, but not enough to distract me(at the very least, they can act circles around "pretty-boy" actors like Robert Pattinson) i've heard complaints about the story being disjointed, but I didn't have any trouble following it.


I also didn't see this film as being "jingoistic" in any way like other critics are saying, as for any branch of the military, you have to be willing to sacrifice your life at the cost of saving others(which is played up in the ending) and no matter how cool the battle scenes look, the vast majority of people in the world are not prepared to make that kind of committment, and even if they are, they most likely won't even make it to training, only about 1% of the population are SEALS.


Did you get the feeling it was trying to influence you? :)

Not at all.


Sun Feb 26, 2012 8:27 pm
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
Vexer wrote:
Not at all.


Glad to hear that :) and since I've so far not got the same impression, having not seen it, I still have no qualms about doing so.


Sun Feb 26, 2012 10:00 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 391
Post Re: ACT OF VALOR
This was a pretty good movie and I was surprised by checking the credits that Tom Clancy was not one of the producers.It sure looked like they used his Rainbow Six game as a template.The only downside is that some of the acting is a little stiff from the non professional actors but not that distracting as the action keeps moving.Watching the Seal tactics and weapons was fairly interesting and if they used live ammo to make it look real it sure looked real in some places.If you read Blackhawk Down it becomes quite clear that if it wasn't for the Delta Forces soldiers holding off the enemy and organizing the trapped regular infantryman they would have been overrun.So these guys really know their stuff.I think it really captured the ethos of guys who serve in elite units like this and the poem at the end by Tecumseh summed it all up perfectly and your reminded they are real people by the list of battle deaths of Seal serviceman since 9/11.

Is it propaganda? Sure it is but all art is propaganda as the artist has a certain viewpoint of the world and conveys it through his work.All works of fiction(sometimes non fiction)manipulate words and deeds to slant the message to manipulate the audience it is where you agree or disagree with it that makes it the truth vs propaganda.The Seals business is war which is straight out killing and that is a hard and dirty business.It would be impossible to do unless you believe your cause to be right and noble.That is the paradox of warfare making order and sense out of senseless violence and random death.

What I find funny is how some things go past movie viewers without batting an eye? The negative portrayal of very specific religions,the supposed hellhole of middle class suburban life and demonizing of all businessmen and politicians. Sometimes when I see the same common trope come up in a trailer I lose interest as the same old thing unless it is that rare creature like Social Network or JFK that is layered and nuanced(though factual wrong almost everywhere)where you can argue it different ways of what had happened.


Mon Feb 27, 2012 4:15 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


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