Victor Davis Hanson Ping !
Let me know if you want in or out
Posted on 11/27/2004 6:36:33 PM PST by quidnunc
Well, I thought it was simply terrible. The film goes on for nearly three hours, but we hear nothing of what either supporters or detractors of Alexander, both ancient and modern, have agreed were the central issues of his life. Did he really believe in a unity of mankind, and were his mass mixed marriages, Persian dress, and kowtowing cynical, sincere, or delusions of megalomania? We see nothing of the siege of Tyre, Gaza, much less Thebes or even the burning of Persepolis. Other than the talking head Ptolemy, none of his generals have much of a character. There is nothing really in detail about the page purging other than a single reference; Stone, I would have thought, could have had a field day with Alexander’s introduction of both crucifixion and decimation.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at victorhanson.com ...
As for manly men...did someone mention Brendan Frazier? I've seen him on screen AND in person. To this woman's taste, he's definitely a manly guy, no problem! He should get some meatier roles---I think he could pull them off. Also, how about David Boreanaz? There are a few young men who have the potential for epics, but haven't been given the parts.
as atheists, their only "rewards" in this life, besides stoking their egos in power games or spending money on material things in order to impress others, are the sensual, evanescent thrills of sex and drugs.
they never seem to actually connect with the marvel of how something beyond them actually channels them into having sex, in order to propagate this species which has so painfully emerged from matter...
they cannot see God that created them because they are stuck looking into the mirror and there is no room in their minds to worship anyone but themselves...
perhaps, unwittingly, they are so obsessed with sex because that is, sadly, as close as they will ever come to sensing the presence of God -- the tantric "orgasm" dissolves their petty egos for a brief instant, enough for them to break through the illusions of everyday life for just a fraction of a second, and they sense the divine presence that permeates everything...
I've seen both versions of The Maltese Falcon. I've seen Key Largo and Notorious one time each, several years ago. I have seen North by Northwest several times. I haven't seen the others, in their entirety.
Let me know if you want in or out
<< [The Third World's] are not essentially modern peoples, the veneer of Westernization runs very thin. >>
Close.
But in fact [The Third World's] are essentially not modern peoples and the veneer of Westernization runs very thin.
Bump for later.
Montgomery Gentry would be a better choice in my view RC!
What Stone film is great LL?
He's made money before but which have been great?
Great characters yes....Elias, Woods/Belushi, Caine/The hand......Kilmer-Doors but what besides neat characters.
His flicks are politically hammy or fantasy or lurid.....not great.
IMHO.
Anybody thinks Stone is anything but an ignorant (in the classic sense) degenerate with a lense eye should get last month's Playboy with Brook Burke on cover (the only reason to buy that rag) and read his interview....he really believes his hype and is obviously somewhere between neurotic and plain looney and loathes America and any morality.
politically hammy or fantasy or lurid
They can be those things and great too. How about Reifenstal's "Triumph of the Will", or Disney's stuff, or some of the black and white masterpieces' of the '30s and'40s?
Anybody thinks Stone is anything but an ignorant (in the classic sense) degenerate with a lense eye should get last month's Playboy with Brook Burke on cover (the only reason to buy that rag) and read his interview....he really believes his hype and is obviously somewhere between neurotic and plain looney and loathes America and any morality.
Although I don't know the man personally I have a close connection to him dating back 40 years (through college friends and friends in the movie business).
He's certainly unconventional and difficult but he's not any of the things you say. He's a great observer of the human scene and has one of the strongest work ethics you can imagine (as are and do most who attain a position like his). To call him uneducated in the classic, or any other sense, is to be monumentally obtuse - to wilfully blind oneself to what is needed to write, direct, and produce a major movie. However, he too has his blind spots and biases. Very strong ones. And he has the usual excesses which characterize men of great power - men who are offered so much more than the average person.
Buy the DVD, I did. Or rent it.
I don't know if your comment is confined to the Left, but it certainly rings true about our society as a whole. There's truth in what you say.
Hollywood does not believe in heroism. It does not believe in extraordinary people. It wants flawed anti-heroes.
When you look at their lives this is understandable.
you called me obtuse Larry...geez...that really was a low blow.
you should be ashamed sir!
Ashamed? Maybe I should be...but I'm not. A character weakness, perhaps?
Correction. I meant uneducated rather than unintelligent...but either word will do in this context.
ok...I'll give you the Joy Luck Club....I liked it.
but great....and way way way way way apart from my own sensibilities which are admittedly divergent with Lollyland anyhow.
Great to me is:
Abel Gance (You know why)
Lean. (Big Big...the best of that)
Capra (obviously)
Attenborough (Lean-lite)
Coppola (romantic gangsters and for Apocalypse Now)
De Mille (big stuff)
Disney (in a league alone)
M Brooks (for almost everything)
Ford ( King of Westerns )
Bertolucci (obviously)
Cimino (one pic only)
J Demme (Lambs)
Hawks (Duke of the Western and others)
Hitchcock (obviously)
De Palma (only for Scarface...and Carrie)
Forman (Amadeus)
Dwan (prolific if nothing else)
Jackson (well, he paints a big picture)
Freidkin (scariest movie ever...30 years and holding)
Mann (M) (mood and great soundtracks)
Ivory (only a colonial could be so Brit)
Leone (campy but fun)
Malle (for Au Revoir Les Enfants)
Huston (another hombre)
Kazan (bravery)
Eastwood (yep)
Kubrick (maybe the best use of light)
Fellini (acid on film)
Peckinpah (for realism and testosterone)
B Edwards (for Dudley RIP)
Preminger (obviously)
Scorsese (real non romantic gangsters)
Frankenheimer (Grand Prix or Manchurian)
R Scott (Blade Runner...wow...one of my alltime favs)
Vidor (Oz...the real one)
Welles (obviously)
Ritt (for HUD)
Wilder (many great flicks)
H Ross ..nuff said
Soderbergh (for his first...very original)
Joffe (for The Mission...since I used to live near there)
Zemeckis (for Gump...call me sentimental)
Mendes (Perdition only, AB was intolerable...as bad as The Contender ideologically)
Minghella (nice texture but Lean Jr obviously)
Zinneman (High Noon..what else?)
Truffaut (just because)
Kurosawa (maybe my fav foreign)
Kaufmann ( Unbearable, Quills, Henry and June)
Burton (ok...Walken as the Hessian is enuff to be included)
Kieslowski (for the trois couleurs series...excellent)
All the Directors for The Longest Day.
Walter Hill (Long Riders)
Mel (for everything...God bless him)
Ok....a short little diddy list but alas...no Oliie...he's all your's
*yes, I know I forgot plenty.
dang, Onyx...we determined the other nite over dinner that you were smart....i'm deflated..lol
WHO determined THAT over dinner?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.