reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/12/84)
"Red Dawn" is a movie that's going to upset a lot of people. It's already
upset quite a few reviewers, and columnists are going to get a lot of copy
out of it, especially if it becomes popular. "Red Dawn" is probably the
most blatently right-wing movie to come out of Hollywood in the last five
years. Not unexpectedly, critics, who are mostly more liberal than not,
have been dumping on it. I think that many of the reviews I've seen of
it are more informed by ideology than aesthetics, which, in a sense, is a
pity. It would be a lot more of a pity if they were trying to bury a really
good film.
For those who don't see coming attraction trailers or read reviews or look at
newspaper ads, the film concerns a Russian invasion of the United States in
the near future. As far as I'm concerned, this makes it science fiction.
The sequence of events which the film implies lead up to the war are
implausible; the belief that the Russians could nuke a few US cities and
not cause an escalation to thermonuclear war is, in my opinion, ridiculous.
However, good films have been made on stupid premises before, so I was willing
to suspend disbelief and go along for the ride.
John Milius, the film's director, is a genuine reactionary. The last film
he made was "Conan the Barbarian", whose philosophy he apparently takes
seriously, and the last President he seems to have approved of was Teddy
Roosevelt. It should thus come as no surprise that the film is set in a
conservative Western area. (It might have been more interesting to see how
New York or Los Angeles would react to a Russian invasion.) The main characters
are a group of high school kids who light off into the mountains when the
Russians drop paratroops on their Rocky Mountain town. After a suitable set
of Communist atrocity scenes, they become guerillas, fighting the Soviet and
Cuban troops behind the lines.
That's about it for plot. They are successful, then they are unsuccessful,
then they are mostly dead. There is no current of dramatic tension here,
no sense that they are foredoomed, or that they are even doing anything
terribly important, other than slaughtering commies basically at random.
This is the film's greatest weakness. It has incidents, not plot. A
stronger story would really make a big difference.
The second biggest problem is characterization. Only two or three of the
young guerillas stand out as individuals. Milius might have done better
to choose more distinctive looking actors. He might also have included
more scenes which shed light on their characters. (This really is his
fault, since he wrote the screenplay, too.) The leader of the guerillas,
played by Patrick Swayze, makes some impression. C. Thomas Howell has the
best part of the young folks, and he too is easy to place. The rest are
a largely indistinguishable mass. I had difficulty telling which of the
two young women was doing what, and I only recognized the actor playing
Swayze's brother when Milius took time to remind me. The adults, mostly
played by veteran character actors, escape this by their familiar faces,
not by virtue of the script.
One talent Milius does have, and displays in extravagent fashion, is the
ability to choreograph action scenes. A lot of screen time is spent on
shooting and blowing up things and people, and Milius gets much visceral
excitement into these scenes. However, since the significance of this
is never really explained, action can't save the movie. Moreover, there is
a problem with consistency. At one point, the kids are incredibly clever
guerilla fighters, at another they are idiots. The only reason for this is
to give them a chance to get killed, as I see it.
There were enough points of interest in "Red Dawn" to keep me satisfied,
if not thrilled. The audience I saw it with, though, loved it to an
extent that is frightening. Any anti-Communist, or anti-Russian, sentiment
uttered met with wild cheers, as did the gunning down of Soviet troops.
They even cheered when the word "California" was mentioned in passing.
I found their wild enthusiasm for mayhem to be a bit too akin to ancient
Romans cheering on gladiators (or more appropriately, cheering the lions
which were rending the Christians). If this is any indication, "Red Dawn"
will be a big hit and we will be at war in Central America in no time at
all.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!reiherRAcosta.ES@XEROX.ARPA (08/15/84)
Welcome to 1984.
A time when the President of the United States tells a joke about having
signed "...legislation to outlaw Russia forever...the bombing will begin
in five minutes.", when Soviet SS20's demarcate Western Europe like a
picket fence and the combined din of U.S. and Soviet sabre-rattling has
reached an unbearable level for most people of the world. What we really
need is a good ol 'mericans vs. the Reds flick, right? I mean the kind
of movie John Wayne would have made had he stuck to war movies, not
those dumb cop movies he made towards the end of his career, like "Green
Berets". The kind of movie that gives jingoism a good name.
"Red Dawn", directed by John Milius and starring Patrick Swayze and
C.Thomas Howell (they of "The Outsiders" and the also recently released
"Grandview, USA") is such a movie. It takes place in the town and
surrounding mountains of Calumet (Montana?), USA. It seems that the
combined communist forces of the Soviet Union, Cuba and Nigaragua have
driven up through Mexico and paratrooped into America's beloved Big Sky
country, splitting the United States into two parts: Free America (west
of the Rockies and east of the Mississippi) and Occupied America
(everything else). Why they chose this strategy and not a preemptive
nuclear strike is not clear. In fact why World War III started in the
first place is not clear, but in this movie that ain't the point. The
point is how much body count we get. And boy do we get body count
-American bodies and Communist bodies in almost every scene. What we
have is the American resistance force, a group of 8 kids called the
"Wolverines" (after their high school football team) ,fighting a
well-equipped, well-trained division of Angola/Afghanistan/Nicaragua
battle hardened Red troops. Given those circumstances the outcome is
obvious -the American teenagers usually win.
This neo-cold war turkey is on the whole ridiculous and brainless,
though it does have some merits: C.Thomas Howell is a standout as the
commie-hating-psycho, a fine cameo by that character actor nonpareil,
Harry Dean Stanton ("Alien","Repo Man") and the roles written for the
two teenage girls in the movie, who are strong, intelligent and equal to
the boys in survival skills. There is also a small and interesting twist
in the plot as a Cuban officer exhibits conscience when he realizes he
has gone from being oppressed to the oppressor, but in general the Reds
are portrayed as cruel barbarians.
"Red Dawn" is playing at theatres and drive-ins everywhere. Speaking of
drive-ins, the definitive review of this movie will probably come from
Joe Bob -or maybe Pravda.
/Rod. sstar.pa@XEROX.ARPA (08/16/84)
I've been in Canada since 1973, and this summer is my first extended return visit to the U.S. since then. First it was Karate Kid. Great reviews--a good movie for the kids and the family. No one seems to note that behind the apparant rejection of the hard-hitting, get'em-when-they're-down philosophy the film's high points are when the Japanese karate instructor/maintenance man, knock's the crap out of the bad guys, and when he teaches the little guy to do the same. Sure, there is talk about finding yourself, but the climax is litterally a solid kick in the face. Believe me, the kids next to me in the theatre weren't yelling and screaming when the hero was trimming bonzai trees. They waited 'till the blood started flowing. All the little kids left the film practicing their karate and swearing vengence on wrong-doers, meaning anybody they could beat up. The next day I went to the S.F. Zoo with a friend. Some little twerp comes walking along at a fast clip and bulldozes his way into us. Then he turns around, assumes his karate pose, and says, "Hey, let's start something, fuck-ups." So much for a pleasant afternoon at the zoo. (Yeah, it's a true story.) I won't do more than mention the random violence in recent weeks: the MacDonald's Massacre, the car going down the sidewalk in L.A.,.... Then I saw Cloak and Dagger the other night. A pretty good flick for kids, and not-too-bad, simple-minded entertainment for adults, but--the kid kills two baddies indirectly (car accident, cross-fire) and then shoots a third in a one-on-one. The director handled the violence pretty well. The kid really doesn't want to shoot, but is forced to after receiving a fusilade of bullets that miss their (imaginary) mark. (You'll have to see it to understand.) So...we've got a relatively good treatment of kiddie violence--and the body-count goes up. Red Dawn is number one at the box office this week. What do we see? Not simple commie-bashing, but a gung-ho protect-our-families-thank-god-we-all-have-guns attitude in a strong political statement. When the commies arrive the first thing they do is search for the form 4477 in the sporting goods store. That's the form that tells who in the county has a registered firearm. Luckily our heros load up a truck with unregistered guns, Coke, and chips. Their initiation rite requires drinking the warm blood of a freshly killed deer. After that, "You're a real hunter. You'll never be the same." And all those pinko sympathizers who want gun control laws can now see--in TECHNICOLOR--that the only hope for America is a well-armed highschool football team. Abby Hoffman recently said, "Now we can't trust anyone under 30." Ronnie just outlawed the Soviet Union. I'm going back to Canada next week (No--I didn't go there to dodge the draft. I just happened to get a job there.). Are these films just a reflection of the popular culture, or do they create it? Be careful at the zoo, and don't get any 12-year olds upset. Spencer Star
Kiewiet.pasa@XEROX.ARPA (08/17/84)
Canada is civilized, isn't it! You know the old saying, "30-below keeps out the riff-raff." My husband and I are the only two people we know who walked out on "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom". We were so disgusted after twenty minutes that we didn't even pause long enough to ask for our money back. The reason for our disgust (twenty minutes doesn't even get you to the violence) was the out and out chauvinism and gringoism. The idea of a 12-year old boy and the "great white hunter" saving the poor, ignorant, superstitious brown people and the ridiculous, helpless female was not only embarrassing, but made me wonder if I had suddenly awakened in the l930's. It is tough going to the movies these days, but I guess it's good practice for understanding the society which produces that junk. Lorraine
BJackson.PA@XEROX.ARPA (08/17/84)
"...wonder if I had suddenly awakened in the l930's"
"It is tough going to the movies these days,...that junk." --
I must admit that I enjoyed "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom"
primarily because it was a good view upon the stereotypes of the past.
I have had a few discussion {loud} with people trying to convince me
that (1) these views are chauvanistic,...ugly,etc and (2) that we
(americans?) still abide by them. I would like to say that I liked
having the opportunity to compare my values with those {idealized} of
the past and that I am glad that I still possess some of these qualities
and that I don't possess others. How are we to improve ourselves if we
deplore some things so much that we refuse to listen to *things* that
contain such. {I hate moral majority too...}
In summary, I hold "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" as an example
of a good {avg} movie and reccomend it. There are many wonderful things
to be seen in {underneath} it along with some not so wonderful...
Bill
ps. This is not a social issues discussion despite my flames. I will
defend my views personally, but don't feel that this is the place. It
seems to be appropriate for pro/con movie statements...Kiewiet.pasa@XEROX.ARPA (08/17/84)
I guess a movie is worth seeing if it provokes one to flame.
lmaher@uokvax.UUCP (08/18/84)
#R:ucla-cs:-77300:uokvax:3900059:000:3339 uokvax!lmaher Aug 18 02:28:00 1984 < SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! > Peter Reiher remarks that some critics are showing their ideology in their reviews of "Red Dawn," and does so a little himself. Net.movies is no place for political discussions (see you in net.politics), so I'll reply briefly. No criticism of Peter is intended or implied, but his ideas are another matter. First off, I agree a Soviet invasion of the U.S. is impossible for logistical reasons - the Soviets have no force projection capability except by land - flames to net.politics or net.flame, not here please. Surely you knew the movie was about a Soviet invasion of America? If you knew you couldn't suspend your disbelief for two hours why bother seeing it? > a problem with consistency. At one point, the kids are > incredibly clever guerilla fighters, at another they are idiots. > The only reason for this is to give them a chance to get killed, > as I see it. The point is obviously that they're tired, they're hungry, and they let their guard down. And they pay for it. No one is perfect all the time, why would you expect them to be? Actually, I thought the fruit would be poisoned, or expected machineguns to open up on them when they all got down there. > There were enough points of interest in "Red Dawn" to keep me > satisfied, if not thrilled. The audience I saw it with, though, > loved it to an extent that is frightening. Any anti-Communist, > or anti-Russian, sentiment uttered met with wild cheers, as did > the gunning down of Soviet troops. I thought the humanity, as well as the inhumanity, of both sides was well shown. The first three soldiers the kids kill were just taking souvenir photos of each other. They stumble across each other by accident, and only kill the soldiers to save themselves from discovery. The Cuban commander is a very sympathetic figure, torn between his background as an insurgent and his current position as "a policeman." Would you have been happier if the audience had been cheering the soldiers gunning down civilians? > They even cheered when the word "California" was mentioned in > passing. OK, I'll admit I find *that* frightening. :-) > I found their wild enthusiasm for mayhem to be a bit too akin to > ancient Romans cheering on gladiators Did the crowd you saw it with cheer as Robert's grief was warped into self-destructive hatred and anger? When the mortally wounded girl stayed behind with a grenade to take one last enemy with her? When the father asked his sons to avenge him, or when he was gunned down? I think there was a lot more to this movie than "they blowed up real good." If people expected to see a "good ol' boys vs. commie trash" flick, I think they missed the point. > (or more appropriately, cheering the lions which were rending the > Christians). Excuse me. Who were the lions and who were the Christians? > If this is any indication, "Red Dawn" will be a big hit and we > will be at war in Central America in no time at all. And if Star Wars is any indication, we will be at war with the evil empire in no time at all. To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes a movie is just a movie." > Peter Reiher > reiher@ucla-cs.arpa > {...ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!reiher Remember, Peter, I'm just talking about the movie, not you. Carl ..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher
reiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (08/26/84)
A lot of movies really do get made on the basis of market research and
predictions about what a certain portion of the audience wants to see,
but "Red Dawn" wasn't one of them. This movie is straight from the
world according to John Milius. It's his idea, his story, his script,
his direction. It got made on the strength of his success with "Conan
the Barbarian", and probably because he promised a lot of action sequences.
He brought it to the studio, the studio didn't bring it to him.
Milius is definitely an auteur, if anyone working in Hollywood is. Whether
he's a good filmmaker is another question.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherreiher@ucla-cs.UUCP (09/23/84)
I read a rather perceptive review of "Red Dawn" which points out that, for
some films, there are really two films: the real film, and the one the
audience thinks it's seeing. Most of the comments you objected to were in
a portion of my review which really reviewed the audience, not the film.
What worries me is not what's in the film, but what some audiences think is
there. I agree that, to his credit, John Milius did not make "Red Dawn"
totally one sided, and he didn't appear to be trying to make a "let's go out
and whump them commies" film, but this was what the audience I saw it with
expected and wanted, and they were so determined in their desires that that is
what they got out of it, evidence of what was on screen to the contrary.
What really frightens me is that there are apparently a lot of people out
there who think it would be a good idea to trash some Communists somewhere.
Such people are likely to respond favorably to attempts to get the US more
deeply involved in Central America. And while it is true that sometimes
a movie, or any work of art, is only a work of art, sometimes it is far more
influential than that. "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was a great boost for the
abolitionists, and "Birth of a Nation" had a major influence in the resurgence
of the Ku Klux Klan in the late teens and early 20's, even though that wasn't
what D. W. Griffith had in mind, at all.
My objections to "Red Dawn", the movie, as opposed to "Red Dawn", the phenomena,
have to do with the fact that, ideology aside, it is a deeply flawed film, not
at all up to the standards of Milius' equally jingoistic, but much more
entertaining, "The Wind and the Lion". As far as my opinions of internal
consistency go, I stand by them. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief, but I
tend to get annoyed if I later discover that it wasn't worth the suspension.
--
Peter Reiher
reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiherthielges@uiucdcsb.UUCP (09/29/84)
i too saw "Red Dawn" and I thought that the scenario was entirely plausible. Any more Communist takeovers in Cen. Amer. and they will have a strong foothold.While I don't wish to sound hawkish, I think we have to keep an eye on the situation down there. Just so you won't think that I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, I spent 5 years in the Navy and took part in the invasion of Grenada (which was done to prevent USSR/Cuba from building an airstrip that was in range of the Panama Canal). Bart's friend Dave: