2.07.2004
where eagles dare
i've been formulating posts in my brain of late that want to evolve into full blown essays. which is good, in a sense, because it reminds me that there are things of note in need of working out. but it certainly isn't as much fun as writing off the cuff. and on that note, i just watched where eagles dare and i wanted to put down a few thoughts about it.
i've been renting a lot of old WWII movies lately for a number of reasons. one is that i'm attempting to reconcile my deep art-school lack of historical knowledge through books (currently john keegan's very-involved the first world war), and supplementing my little assignments with movies is fun. plus it makes crude little points of reference (i learn through stories not facts), and reveals a bit about cultural desires in the wake of history (e.g. the difference between the massive, strategy-obsessed filmmaking of the longest day, as oppossed to today's more individual/psychological fare).
where eagles dare isn't exactly enlightening as a document of the war, but it is a hell of a fun movie. it's also proof that "action-packed" and "intelligent" aren't always mutually exclusive. the convoluted espionage of the film's premise is pretty damn sophisticated, not to mention confusing. and with my mind twisted in knots, i still got to see some fun, old fashioned shoot 'em up stuff too.
but the really fascinating thing about it is how well richard burton fits into an action film. he can turn his fast-talking persona from uppity to vicious in a manner of seconds. (note the scene where he's undercover as a nazi and he pretends to be the brother of heinrich himmler). burton's been on the brain a bit, with all the graham greene i've been reading (currently the comendians, which became a film starring burton). so i have this image of him as the punchy, forlorn vagabond of a greene novel or a film like night of the iguana (among others), and it makes it hard to picture him with a machine gun. but it works. and with clint eastwood by his side, you get two surprisingly complimentary types of cool: never-shut-up sophisticate cool (burton) and shut-the-fuck-up-or-i'll-whack-you cool (eastwood).
why doesn't this sort of pair-up work anymore??? i mean, i'm all for silly action movies (i thought xxx, for example, was loveable enough buffonery), but i could use a little crunch to the dialogue once in a while. recent action movies have a far narrower definition of serious/not serious. a "serious" movie tends not to get off on explosions and machine guns in quite the same way. i guess we get something sorta close to what i'm imagining with that pirates of the caribbean movie-- where johnny depp is so good he seems as if he's on loan from another movie altogether. too bad the rest of it falls a bit flat.
i want an action film that feels like iggy pop and david bowie together in the 70's. that sort of interaction would be really entertaining. does that make any sense??
bring back richard burton style cool, hollywood. and don't worry, you can give him a machine gun.
i've been renting a lot of old WWII movies lately for a number of reasons. one is that i'm attempting to reconcile my deep art-school lack of historical knowledge through books (currently john keegan's very-involved the first world war), and supplementing my little assignments with movies is fun. plus it makes crude little points of reference (i learn through stories not facts), and reveals a bit about cultural desires in the wake of history (e.g. the difference between the massive, strategy-obsessed filmmaking of the longest day, as oppossed to today's more individual/psychological fare).
where eagles dare isn't exactly enlightening as a document of the war, but it is a hell of a fun movie. it's also proof that "action-packed" and "intelligent" aren't always mutually exclusive. the convoluted espionage of the film's premise is pretty damn sophisticated, not to mention confusing. and with my mind twisted in knots, i still got to see some fun, old fashioned shoot 'em up stuff too.
but the really fascinating thing about it is how well richard burton fits into an action film. he can turn his fast-talking persona from uppity to vicious in a manner of seconds. (note the scene where he's undercover as a nazi and he pretends to be the brother of heinrich himmler). burton's been on the brain a bit, with all the graham greene i've been reading (currently the comendians, which became a film starring burton). so i have this image of him as the punchy, forlorn vagabond of a greene novel or a film like night of the iguana (among others), and it makes it hard to picture him with a machine gun. but it works. and with clint eastwood by his side, you get two surprisingly complimentary types of cool: never-shut-up sophisticate cool (burton) and shut-the-fuck-up-or-i'll-whack-you cool (eastwood).
why doesn't this sort of pair-up work anymore??? i mean, i'm all for silly action movies (i thought xxx, for example, was loveable enough buffonery), but i could use a little crunch to the dialogue once in a while. recent action movies have a far narrower definition of serious/not serious. a "serious" movie tends not to get off on explosions and machine guns in quite the same way. i guess we get something sorta close to what i'm imagining with that pirates of the caribbean movie-- where johnny depp is so good he seems as if he's on loan from another movie altogether. too bad the rest of it falls a bit flat.
i want an action film that feels like iggy pop and david bowie together in the 70's. that sort of interaction would be really entertaining. does that make any sense??
bring back richard burton style cool, hollywood. and don't worry, you can give him a machine gun.
