October 14, 2008
Miracles Do Happen!
Let's face it. Everyone is a critic when it comes to which movies you should spend $10 to see or which songs you should blast in your MP3s. As a filmmaker, I'm a critic as well. With that being said, I hate critics. Yes I said it. I hate them. Really, I don't hate them as people but I often hate their opinions. I hate the fact that they see movies before the general public does and they rush to discourage mankind's desire to see motion pictures (unless you are the type that loves to see movies that critics tear apart). They also have a hard time at separating an artist's personal opinion, of the critic and the world, from the artist's current work. I truly believe that this is the case with the latest installment from 40 Acres and a Mule Productions called Miracle at St. Anna. Prior to the movie's opening, I viewed a couple of trailers and I read the storyline which encouraged me to believe that this effort would do more in box office receipts than it's predecessor, Inside Man. This is sadly not the case after three weeks into the release. Spike is a proven filmmaker. Why does he have to continue to fight for the $45 million when other filmmakers are given twice that amount by the majors? Are the viewers also failing him by a lack of support at the box office? What factors dictated the amount of theaters (1,185) in which this film was screened? Other films that week opened on over 2,000 screens each.
Although I often oppose critics' opinions, I read responses from a few. Note: I'll admit that I was partial to Siskel and Ebert's opinions well before I became a filmmaker. Thus, I continue to listen to Ebert's ops from time to time. However, they don't sway me from watching a particular motion picture.
Today, I made it a point to see Miracle at St. Anna in order to catch it before it departs the theater. A few of these ideas that I read were in the back of my mind.
1) There's a considerable amount of choices for Spike to cut out of the film.
2) The music dictated how the audience should feel.
3) It was too convoluted with difficult themes.
4) You never get the chance to know any of the characters.
5) It's violent.
This film isn't a short film, therefore don't think that you will walk in and walk out. I planned for that. Usually when someone says that a film is long, they mean that their mind began to wane. Therefore it must be cut to appease them. I remained intact throughout the film without feeling that I missed out anything that would sacrifice my understanding of the story. Even with Inside Man I felt the need to review the movie just to clarify a few things.
Blanchard's music definitely dictates how a viewer should feel at a given time. Isn't that one reason for scoring?
Convoluted? There were several B plots, however, I didn't struggle to keep them organized in my mind.
A great job was even done by sharing thoughts of the enemies. It made sense to let us into their psychy a little bit and it was enough to let the viewer know what was on their minds.
Yes, there's plenty of violence. Compared to the amount of the film which didn't involve violence, it was negligible. It was a film about soldiers in a war. What should people have expected? You would find equally as much death in Glory, The Last Samarai, and Titanic.
Maybe I saw a different version of the film than many others had the chance to see. In my opinion, it is one of the best films that I've seen. It drew emotion in places that I didn't expect it to. I wouldn't be surprised if people didn't walk out of the theaters full of tears. The interaction between the soldiers drew me closer to them by the end of the movie. There's also a child that draws a lot of attention throughout the film.
I can't say that ANY movie is perfect because somebody will always have something negative to say. You can't please everyone. Also, there were strange parts to this movie including a woman that was broadcast via loudspeaker in enemy territory and a discussion that occurred on the beach toward the end. Each added things for me to think about internally. However, I don't believe that this movie deserves the lack of attention that it has received. As a filmmaker, it is unnerving to think that such a great movie could be overlooked. What does it take to make the masses see a film that had so much effort and talent put into it? Who knows? Maybe it will be like Shawshank Redemption, a film that didn't receive notoriety until it became the largest grossing DVD in history, at the time. For now, I still believe that Spike's films are critiqued more by what he says before and after the films rather than the art itself. He didn't even place his symbolic Spike shot in this movie. It is my opinion that he should do something that Donnie Osmond and Babyface have done in the past. Ship the film without a name on it. Let them play it and decide for themselves. Give yourself an alias. It is only then that Lee will get a fair trial.
Tieuel Legacy! aka Shawnre'...dubbed one of the best up and coming filmmakers out of Texas.
Posted By: Tieuel Legacy
Thursday, October 16th 2008 at 3:44PM
You can also
click
here to view all posts by this author...
