 |
 |
In response to Jeramy Poulin, here's part of an email recently sent to me by a reader, Mike Konczal , pasted in below. Best, Jonathan I remember reading in "Movie Wars" a section about the possiblities of an actual Anti-War movie. You pointed out that both Saving Private Ryan and Full Metal Jacket can be read in a way that glorifies the violence associated with war just by showing it. Reading a review from salon.com of the new Gulf War memoir "Jarheads" by former Marine Anthony Swofford, that thought came back to me: --- >From "Jarhead," you will learn that Marines pump themselves up bywatching war movies on video: "We yell Semper fi and we head-butt and beat the crap out of each other and we get off on the various visions of carnage and violence and deceit, the raping and killing and pillaging. We concentrate on the Vietnam films because it's the most recent war." The fact that these films are meant to be antiwar doesn't faze them. "Actually, Vietnam war films are all pro-war," Swofford writes, "no matter what the supposed message." Marines love them because "the magic brutality of the films celebrates the terrible and despicable beauty of [our] fighting skills." -- These soldiers will, of course, be the harbingers of democracy and freedom to the Middle East very soon. Scary times. At 06:00 PM 3/18/2003 +0000, you wrote: >There are 7 messages totalling 249 lines in this issue. > >Topics of the day: > > 1. Women in French New Wave > 2. The Iraq War (3) > 3. Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War (2) > 4. Stan Brakhage's Films > >---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 13:14:12 EST >From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Women in French New Wave > >Angela, >Yes, Les Bonnes femmes is worth seeing for your purposes, if you can. Also >Zazie dans le metro, which chronicles a little girl's odyssey through >Gaullist Paris but establishes a model for 'little girls' in mainstream >French cinema from Amelie to Nikita. >Richard > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 15:26:15 EST >From: Richard Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: The Iraq War > >As I and millions more will have their perceptions of the imminent war >against Iraq shaped by the moving image, I felt it appropriate tonight to >express solidarity with Iraqi subscribers, and any French or francophone >film-philosophers disturbed by the failure of the WMD talks. As a Briton I am >perplexed by our illegal resolution to embark on war, while diplomatic >hostility towards France makes me ashamed to be British. I don't wish to >spark a debate about these events which would be inappropriate in this >context, I merely wish to express mine and millions of Britons' solidarity >with the cause of peace and European unity. Naturally, if a conversation >about documentary aesthetics should arise out of the conflict, I shall follow >it with interest. >Richard > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 17:49:42 -0800 >From: Robert Koehler <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: The Iraq War > >Thanks, Richard, for your comments and concerns. I just added my name to a >growing worldwide petition to protest the war, and some of you will receive >it (or already have). When you do, please sign it and pass it along. >This crisis is so multifaceted that there is no single center to it, but the >facet that disturbs me the greatest transcends the specifics of this >impending war: It's the radical policy of pre-emptive strike that has been >adopted by this Administration. Even at the height of the Cold War, when >analysts determined that the US could and should pre-emptively strike the >USSR--and this destroy its nuclear capability--the idea was soundly rejected >by both Republican and Democrat Administrations (specifically, Eisenhower >and Kennedy) as simply crazy. (This was more or less the word uttered in the >West Wing at the time.) With the newly unleashed and unprecedented >pre-emptive policy about to get its first test, the actual results will not >be the defeat of Saddam Hussein, but the ancillary pre-emptive strikes by >other regimes against their perceived enemies. Once the logic of this policy >has not only been put into action, but proven victorious, it will only >encourage India, Pakistan, perhaps even China, and possibly other >non-nuclearized countries to lash out. The troubling point of all of this is >that they would feel justified, emboldened by US action. War is proving once >again to be the failure of diplomacy (can there be a clearer example of that >principle in our lifetimes?), but it is also nothing more or less than the >unleashing of unintended consequences. The unintended consequences of the >Wolfowitz el al. doctrine (devised, it should be underscored, long before >9/11) may be the real definition of ``shock and awe.'' >Robert Koehler > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:33:07 +1000 >From: Gary MacLennan <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War > >My congratulations and support to both Robert and Richard for bringing this >up on the list. If we think of philosophy as having an ethical dimension >(and here I commend Levinas to you all) then comments on what is going on >now in the world are surely suitable. Moreover the recent spate of war >films shows that the enemies of peace do not hesitate to use film to >promote hate. > >This semester I took the opportunity to use the torture sequence >from David Russell's Three Kings. I wanted to discuss the phenomenon of a >popular film making explicit truth claims - e.g. The First Gulf War was >about oil and not about helping Kuwait. > >I also of course wanted to raise the issue of the coming Second Gulf War. >Some of the students had seen the film and argued that the dominant message >was that of "a job unfinished" and as such the film was in effect preparing >the way for the coming war. I looked at the film again, in the light of >this comment and had to agree. Not for the first time have my students >taught me. > >regards > >Gary > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 21:15:17 -0600 >From: Robert Keser <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: The Iraq War > >A fine statement, Richard. As an American, what's hard to take is >that educated, sophisticated citizens--who should be leaders in >society--are revealed to be utterly powerless to put a stop to such >a grotesque invasion, one which most of the world recognizes as a >war crime itself, one which will surely harm many innocent people >in Iraq. > >Pseudo-populists in the media are of course waging an information >war to inflate the prejudices of ordinary folk, manipulating facts, >twisting logic, and appealing to jingoism. In the context of this group, >it is deeply embarrassing to witness the crude xenophobia that insults >the country that gave us M=E9lies, the Lumi=E8res, Gance, Jean Vigo, >'Grande Illusion', 'Les Enfants du paradis', 'La Belle et la b=EAte', 'Je= >ux >Interdits', 'Madame de...', 'Le Salaire de la peur', the entire Nouvelle >Vague, 'Hiroshima, Mon Amour', Godard, 'Au hasard, Balthazar', 'Z', >Rohmer, Rivette, Derrida... > >--Robert Keser > >Richard Armstrong wrote: > > > As I and millions more will have their perceptions of the imminent war > > against Iraq shaped by the moving image, I felt it appropriate tonight = >to > > express solidarity with Iraqi subscribers, and any French or francophon= >e > > film-philosophers disturbed by the failure of the WMD talks. As a Brito= >n I am > > perplexed by our illegal resolution to embark on war, while diplomatic > > hostility towards France makes me ashamed to be British. I don't wish t= >o > > spark a debate about these events which would be inappropriate in this > > context, I merely wish to express mine and millions of Britons' solidar= >ity > > with the cause of peace and European unity. Naturally, if a conversatio= >n > > about documentary aesthetics should arise out of the conflict, I shall = >follow > > it with interest. > > Richard > >------------------------------ > >Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 22:36:27 -0500 >From: Jeramy Poulin <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Three Kings was Re: The Iraq War > > I too would like to second Gary in supporting Robert and Richard for >bringing this up. If the US media had actually showcased anti-war >supporters as articulate as Robert we might not have reached this point. > >------------------------ > >Some of the students had seen the film and argued that the dominant > >message was that of "a job unfinished" and as such the film was in > >effect > >preparing the way for the coming war. I looked at the film again, in > >the light of this comment and had to agree. Not for the first time > >have my students taught me. > >Gary >----------------------- > > I am reminded of my time spent in the military (somewhat ironically as >an Arabic interrogator/interpreter). The army decided to show "Saving >Private Ryan" as a morale booster at my post. The showing was >specifically meant to counter the anti-anthrax vaccination protests that >were threatening to cause many soldiers to go AWOL, circa 98-99. US tax >money at work. I don't believe that "Three Kings" would ever pass the >morale booster litmus test, but it wouldn't surprise me if it has been >attempted. Does anyone know of any 'odd' films that are shown to >specifically increase soldier morale? I've often been curious about >this grotesque practice. > > Jeramy Poulin > >------------------------------ > >Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 12:47:29 -0500 >From: DavidFujino <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: Stan Brakhage's Films > > >Hi Dan, > > > >Here in Toronto many of the better independent video stores have copies of > >Dog Star Man, but I don't know where these would have come from. In May, > >however, Criterion is releasing a DVD containing a wide selection of > >Brakhage's stuff. In the meantime, you could track down Jim Shedden's > >documentary "Brakhage," which contains lots of clips from B.'s films. > > > >Best, > > > >Sean > > > > > >---------- > >Sean Saraka, Ph.D. Candidate > >Department of Political Science > >York University > >4700 Keele St. > >Toronto, Ontario > >CANADA M3J 1P3 > >[log in to unmask] > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Film-Philosophy Salon [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On > >Behalf Of HOPKINS Daniel A > >Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 4:20 AM > >To: [log in to unmask] > >Subject: Stan Brakhage's Films > > > > > > With Regards to the sad news of Stan Brakhage's death. I have > >always enjoyed what I have read about his work, but alas I have never seen > >any. Is there any of his work available on video. i know he was not a fan of > >video especially transfering his films to it. But I wondered if any one on > >this list knew of any of his work anywhere. > > > > Many Thanks > > > > Dan Hopkins > > > >The information in this email is confidential and is intended solely for the > >addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorised. > > > >If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution > >or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, except for the > >purpose of delivery to the addressee, is prohibited and may be unlawful. > >Kindly notify the sender and delete the message and any attachment from your > >computer. > >------------------------------ > >End of FILM-PHILOSOPHY Digest - 17 Mar 2003 to 18 Mar 2003 (#2003-75) >*********************************************************************