「パール・ハーバー」 |
Directed by Michael Bay, Written by : Randall Wallace
Starring : Ben Affleck, Josh Hartnett, and Kate Beckinsale
Please check out "Pearl Harbor", the movie LINKs.
***I didn't write any exposure of the story. So even if you haven't seen this film, don't worry!
So... Why "Peal Harbor" now......???
If you're a filmmaker, you’d make a pitch to an executive like...
F: "Let's just make another blockbuster / Oscar winning film,
'TITANIC' meets 'Saving Private Ryan' with the latest CG work".
E: "Sounds promising."
F: "The title, 'Pearl Harbor' is not taken yet, so let's grab it!"
E: "Sure. But... what about 'From Here to Eternity'?
What about 'Tora! Tora! Tora!'?
Don't you want to just remake them???"
F: "Well..., you know, we definitely need a lot of help from the Military.
If we remake 'From Here...', we'll end up in trouble like 'Courage Under Fire".
If we remake "Tora! Tora! Tora!", it won't be a happy ending and
it will be too much pain in the a- - working with J- -, you know?"
Of course, this conversation is just made up by me, and it was not how the production of "Pearl Harbor" had begun. The idea came from one of the Disney executives' enthusiastic idea, and, as you know, Jerry Bruckheimer (the producer), Michael Bay (the director), and Randall Wallace (the screenwriter), and others developed it.
Nevertheless, for me, it just seemed like this kind of "quickie exploitation movie" just with enormous technical support from computer graphics.
Even though I'm a kind the person, who prefers go to see "Non-Hollywood Movies", I went to see "The Rock" and quite liked it (I even went to see "Armageddon" in a theater, to tell the truth). So, I chose the "IMAX 3-D theater" to see "Pearl Harbor". Although I'm obviously negative about this film, I tried to enjoy those action scenes, at least for 10 bucks.
As you’ve provably heard 100 times before from the media, the filmmakers wanted to make another "TITANIC", but only the similar part I could see was the "ship sinking scenes" (LOL). Yes, they shot the part at exactly the same studio with exactly the same people. But c’mon, it's been 3 years since "TITANIC", couldn't they have shot it in some different way???
The 40 minute attacking scene was just watching some "non-trick" fireworks (even Macy's firework show are more creative). There is no comparison with "Saving Private Ryan", and, for me, the Nazi shooting scenes in "Schindler's List" traumatized me 100 times more than the bombing scene in "Pearl Harbor". (BTW, I'm not a fan of Spielburg at all, believe me!)
Other parts were totally nothing. I was just hoping the time would past twice as fast as usual at the theater.
The "love triangle" was not even "puppyish" as a couple of critics called but just horrible gags. I would imagine that even the fans of Ben Afflec would get pissed off at the sitcom writing and directing. There is no doubt (if not, it'll be a sensation) that Ben Afflek will be nominated for the Raspberry Award (Just in case for you not knowing , theyユre the awards for the worst films / actors held every year) and he has a great chance to win!
The unrecognizable Kate Beckinsale from "Cold Comfort Farm" could be anyone with bright red lipstick, and Josh Hernet just acquired some more junior high / high school girl fans but nothing else. None of John Void, Alec Boldwin, nor Cuba Gooding Jr. looked cool or dignified, though that is what they are supposed to be. Wonder how many of the above will get nominated for Raspberry Award next year.
Speaking of main characters, there was only one Asian character in the entire 3-hour film, who is still barely recognizable and memorable. The Tony winner / Oscar nominated actor, Mako, who acted Isoroku Yamamoto, is one of the biggest Asian American actors in the US. Since he grow up in Japan until he graduated from high school, I could understand what he was saying in Japanese without subtitles. However, I couldn't understand almost any other Japanese lines by the other actors, who are not native Japanese speakers.
Yes, you might be able to say the co-production of "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was too ideal. Sure, even for me, who has been dreaming about a co-production of Japan and the US, it is amazing they did it over 30 years ago. I'm not expecting that much. However, at least they could call some of the millions of Japanese actors, who lives on the West coast, are dying to be in a Hollywood movie. Or they could make one phone call to a Japanese talent agency on the West coast, couldn't they???
It’s not only the actors. I didn't see any credits with Japanese names in the art department. Around the "secret (but somehow in an open field with kids around) generals' meeting", you see flags with the word "Sonnou (respect the Emperor)", which was used more than 100 years ago. The worst shot of Japan was the three women walking in Kimono. God, almost all women wore western cloth by then. And if they spent a few more minutes researching about Japanese costume, they could easily found out that women at that time wore "Monpe".
It's just so obvious that they'd never thought about "historical research" seriously (as you know, they didn't do enough research even about the history of their own country, no wonder…)
Since the film, "Cheat" starring Sessu Hayakawa, Japanese have been stereotyped in thousands of American films. However, except for Isoroku Yamamoto, there are not even clear-cut faces of those Japanese characters in this film. It’s just like the portrayal of the Vietcong in other Hollywood films.
Throughout the scenes of Doolittle's Tokyo Raid, we never see a single Japanese face under the bombs, while the audience sees hundreds of American causalities after the Pearl Harbor attack. We never know how Japanese people suffer, hurt, or die, because it ruins the "American Justice".
Even in the Pearl Harbor attack scenes, Japanese are no more than the symbol of evils, enemies, and targets of the "CG game". That is why the hero is able to call them "Jap Sucker" without shame in this magnificent and dignified epic film.
Despite the vague Japanese descriptions, those filmmakers pretended to care about Japanese-Americans. They contacted to JACL (Japanese American Citizen's League) and let them read the early script. JACL basically asked Disney for 2 things; 1) to put in a Japanese-American character, who contributed to the US. 2) to eliminate a character, the stereotyped Japanese-American dentist, whose real role is a spy.
In the final cut, Yes, 1) was accepted, but we only see the Japanese-American doctor just for 0.1 second. 2) was maintained and the scene takes more than 10 min (I don’t think it's necessary for the story at all). What's up with that???
I know they cannot afford 20 minutes to show the other side of Japanese-Americans history (actually 44% of causalities of Pearl Harbor attack were Japanese-Americans. J-A on the West coast were sent to the camps in the middle of the desert. Most of draft age J-A were fought and died for United States.) But 0.1 sec for the J-A doctor and more than 10
min for the spy? If they just ends up with irritating JACL anyway, how come they even bordered to contact to JACL from the beginning???
Although you can enjoy the Japanese stereotypes in this film, you miss seeing those of Asian-Americans. As the "Village Voice" and other newspapers mentioned, you see no (non-Japanese) Asians on the screen except the Sumo wrestler, though Asians were definitely the majority at the time in Hawaii. Why are all the boys who are playing baseball on the morning of the attack white? Why do we never see any Asians on the street???
Because… this film is selling "the ideal American dream", which does not include minorities. One of the catch phrases for "Pearl Harbor" is "The Last Era of the American Innocence." Therefore, they can never show something, which reminds us that "America has never been an innocent" (for instance, occupying Native Hawaiian lands or conquering minorities).
Obviously, those filmmakers received a lot of help from the US military. So this story cannot end like "From Here to Eternity" does, because it is totally negative about the US military and has no happy ending. The war must be fun and you got to win at last.
Thus, the filmmakers brought the Tokyo Raid in the end of the story. But why not
Hiroshima? If they did, of course, then they would lose the second biggest audience in the world.
As I wrote above, those Japanese who are attacked have no faces, so you can fully enjoy the killing as you enjoy killing games like "Tomb Radar" or "Final Fantasy".
I'm not criticizing this film because it's negative about the Japanese. I’d been pleased that if they showed what Japanese did in Asia at that time, but, of course, they won’t do it for the marketing sake in Japan. I'm just opposed to all war movies, which makes you enjoy killing someone. Although the beginning of "Saving Private Ryan" shows you the horror of war, by the end of the story, you can be pleased seeing a Nazi soldier dies. I still remember that when the chicken soldier finally shot a Nazi soldier, 90% of the audience in the theater clapped their hands.
Speaking of "Saving Private Ryan", "Pearl Harbor" used the same racial trick as "Saving..." did. Apparently, the theme of "Saving Private Ryan" is not Private but "Public".
In the same way, it could not be "Saving Private Gwangwa", "Private Rodoriges", "Private Chang", "Private Goldburg", "Private Kaufman" or "Private Smith", the lead character in “Pearl Harbor” was named McCawley. Only that kind of Irish-Scottish name can be the symbol of "the illusion of the American dream" and can hide all racial contradictions, which laid behind.
Remember who is the audience from whom the producers are making money with "Pearl Harbor". Besides the parasite singles in Japan, they're making money from minorities such as African-Americans, Non-Japanese Asian-Americans and Latinos, who can, unfortunately, see the "American Dream" ONLY in this kind movie or at the Disneyland.
---------------------------
Go to mook's Film Review Index