rocketpig said:
sad.man.loves.vgc said:
rocketpig said:
sapphi_snake said:
rocketpig said:
sapphi_snake said:
rocketpig said:
I felt the exact opposite way when I finished watching the film. I felt for the soldiers and the predicament they were put in the film. It all seemed rather pointless.
So, in your OPINION, it's a pro-war piece. In my opinion, it's neutral to anti-war but mainly, it's a character piece.
Isn't that the point of good art? To challenge perception and let the audience take from it what they will? Maybe both of us are right, maybe neither of us are right.
But to definitively say that the film is pro-war is, frankly, bullshit.
|
Why are the Americans over there? Should they be there? Is there any point to the war?
That's all that matters. The personal tragedy of the soldiers doesn't.
|
In your opinion. You DO realize that people are allowed to have dissenting opinions on subjects, right? And that your OPINION is not gospel... right?
|
Of couse they are. That doesn't change the fact that they're blind to what really matters (in MY OPINION, I gotta mention this; you sure remind me of an annoying judge on The Good Wife).
But why don't you explain to me why you have the opinion that you do?
|
The Hurt Locker did a good job of displaying various people in the military; some crazy, some sane, some good, some bad
|
I don't remember it contained any charecter that was "bad" in the American side, at least not the main charecters. Abu Ghraib was beyond "bad" and none of the scenes showed us how ugly some of American soldiers can get.
|
Oh wait, I forgot how it's only okay for directors to show black and white. Shades of grey are obviously unacceptable. You know what The Hurt Locker needed to not be propaganda? A massive rape scene of Iraqi women and/or cattle. It's the only way Bigelow could have shown the "evil" of the war, even though that wasn't the point of the film AT ALL and would have turned into true propaganda but you guys would have been okay with it because it'd be propaganda YOU agreed with. Still, that's propaganda, everyone...
As I said earlier, the lead character was an asshole. He wasn't necessarily "bad" per se but he certainly wasn't a good guy. He was a fucked up guy who continually did fucked up things to his fellow soldiers, family at home, and then constantly put them all at risk.
Whooooooo! My HERO!
|
erm, you said some of the soldiers are bad yet they never appear in the movie -the main character WASN'T bad, he is an asshole and I did mention that in my first post here- yet we've the ugliest from the terrorists who killed a kid and stuffed his guts with bombs and chained another guy to bombs. This is NOT a balanced movie, which is kinda the point of this thread.
