DavidB-7
Entrou em dez. de 2001
Bem-vindo(a) ao novo perfil
Nossas atualizações ainda estão em desenvolvimento. Embora a versão anterior do perfil não esteja mais acessível, estamos trabalhando ativamente em melhorias, e alguns dos recursos ausentes retornarão em breve! Fique atento ao retorno deles. Enquanto isso, Análise de Classificação ainda está disponível em nossos aplicativos iOS e Android, encontrados na página de perfil. Para visualizar suas Distribuições de Classificação por ano e gênero, consulte nossa nova Guia de ajuda.
Selos2
Para saber como ganhar selos, acesse página de ajuda de selos.
Avaliações7
Classificação de DavidB-7
This is a sound and thoughtful performance by Peck, who was saddled by a Ciceronian script, some of it presumably emanating from MacArthur himself.
MacArthur's conviction that war is a great evil is convincingly portrayed, as is the relish of a general doing the only thing for which he was trained: the prosecution of war to the utmost severity.
The real heroes of this movie are the politicians. Not just Roosevelt, but also the caricature of Truman, and the never seen or heard Eisenhower (a good clerk according to Peck's MacArthur). This movie reminded me that it is as important for a politician to compromise as for it is a general to combat.
MacArthur's greatest opportunity was to become military ruler of a defeated Japan, for 3 years. It appears that he seized this to some good effect. He later claimed that:
"The Japanese people since the war have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have from the ashes left in war's wake erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity, and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice."
In this one seems to hear the tone of a general boasting about his troops. That is no small thing: for a fighter to impose a peace, on more or less unconditional terms, and seek to reconstitute, rather than to humiliate. He would have made an abominably bad politician, but as interim ruler he ain't done so bad, according to this thoughtful movie.
7/10 for movie making; 8/10 for thought provocation.
David Broadhurst
MacArthur's conviction that war is a great evil is convincingly portrayed, as is the relish of a general doing the only thing for which he was trained: the prosecution of war to the utmost severity.
The real heroes of this movie are the politicians. Not just Roosevelt, but also the caricature of Truman, and the never seen or heard Eisenhower (a good clerk according to Peck's MacArthur). This movie reminded me that it is as important for a politician to compromise as for it is a general to combat.
MacArthur's greatest opportunity was to become military ruler of a defeated Japan, for 3 years. It appears that he seized this to some good effect. He later claimed that:
"The Japanese people since the war have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have from the ashes left in war's wake erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity, and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice."
In this one seems to hear the tone of a general boasting about his troops. That is no small thing: for a fighter to impose a peace, on more or less unconditional terms, and seek to reconstitute, rather than to humiliate. He would have made an abominably bad politician, but as interim ruler he ain't done so bad, according to this thoughtful movie.
7/10 for movie making; 8/10 for thought provocation.
David Broadhurst
Like others, I had heard poor opinions of this movie. Watching it tonight, for the first time, I found many things of interest. Here are a few, in no particular order.
1) It is clearly an anti-war movie: most of the characters have no option but to fight; none seems to enjoy doing so.
2) It seems to me well tuned into pre-Aristotelian tradition. In the age of Aeschylus, it became possible to imitate dark things and -- through fear and pity -- partially to tame them. Stone seemed to understand this, particularly when Phillip shows Alexander the wall paintings.
3) At first I found it strange that Alexander remained so trapped in his teenage. At the age of 33 (the age of Jesus of Nazareth, reputedly, taking on Pilate and the Sanhedrin) he seemed to have grown little from the bright-eyed pupil at the Academy. Stone clearly intended this metastasis: the backtracking by 10 and then by 9 years was signposted in school-masterly fashion.
4) Hopkins' Ptolemy is intended to be a boring old f*rt. He gives us as much as a rational man can of A's genesis and nemesis. Stone wants us to explore what remains.
5) The charges made by some of homo-eroticism are ludicrous. There is only one sex scene, between A and Roxanne, which was presumably intended to deepen the platonic relationship between A and Hephaistion. (I imagine that Stone was being deliberately unhistorical in portraying A and H as chaste; such is the burden of writing for US audiences.)
6) Yet, ultimately, for me, the movie failed to convince. I wanted to see Alexander transformed by his ontogeny. Instead, he seemed to be trapped by it. But that was a failing of some import; perhaps Stone intended it.
7) This movie will get better and better ratings as more folk watch it, out of the hothouse of commercial ratings. Already I feel that I need to watch it a second time.
David Broadhurst
1) It is clearly an anti-war movie: most of the characters have no option but to fight; none seems to enjoy doing so.
2) It seems to me well tuned into pre-Aristotelian tradition. In the age of Aeschylus, it became possible to imitate dark things and -- through fear and pity -- partially to tame them. Stone seemed to understand this, particularly when Phillip shows Alexander the wall paintings.
3) At first I found it strange that Alexander remained so trapped in his teenage. At the age of 33 (the age of Jesus of Nazareth, reputedly, taking on Pilate and the Sanhedrin) he seemed to have grown little from the bright-eyed pupil at the Academy. Stone clearly intended this metastasis: the backtracking by 10 and then by 9 years was signposted in school-masterly fashion.
4) Hopkins' Ptolemy is intended to be a boring old f*rt. He gives us as much as a rational man can of A's genesis and nemesis. Stone wants us to explore what remains.
5) The charges made by some of homo-eroticism are ludicrous. There is only one sex scene, between A and Roxanne, which was presumably intended to deepen the platonic relationship between A and Hephaistion. (I imagine that Stone was being deliberately unhistorical in portraying A and H as chaste; such is the burden of writing for US audiences.)
6) Yet, ultimately, for me, the movie failed to convince. I wanted to see Alexander transformed by his ontogeny. Instead, he seemed to be trapped by it. But that was a failing of some import; perhaps Stone intended it.
7) This movie will get better and better ratings as more folk watch it, out of the hothouse of commercial ratings. Already I feel that I need to watch it a second time.
David Broadhurst
The film of Artemisia may be considered treason, or as true artistic license.
Which might one aver?
In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.
In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.
How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?
The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.
That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.
So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.
In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.
For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.
Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.
David Broadhurst
Which might one aver?
In documented history, Artemisia Gentileschi was subjected to the thumbscrew, and still affirmed that she was r***ed, as Mary Garrard and Gloria Steinem have eloquently affirmed.
In the movie, under a different torture, she refused to condemn her lover/violator.
How may a movie deviate so much from received history, yet still inform the human heart?
The answer is not so hard to find. In the movie, the director and cast had filled a gaping hole in the historical record, with the power of imagination.
That led to a conclusion that differs from the record.
So be it. I find _both_ the record and the movie to be compelling.
In both the movie and (it seems) in history, Artemisia was a painter, before all else.
For that vision, framed in ravishing (sic) film composition, I am truly grateful.
Seldom have I seen a movie that so compelled my eyes.
David Broadhurst