i really enjoyed this film although it was a little slow to get into at the start and despite one or two goofs. i.e how can you drive a jeep with a broken arm. for me the film was tarnished with uneeded foul language, might just be my perspective but just felt it wasnt needed. the nods to casablanca etc made me smile and overall this was a very good film. i would rate it 9 out of 10.
shareI agree about all the swearing. It was very odd and kept throwing me out of the movie. And this is coming from someone who loves swearing, when it's in the Sopranos or some other appropriate setting.
shareYep, FULLY agree guys! And I appreciate your comment about how you DO like swearing, but you hit on the point: It just did NOT fit this at all...
Funny, Sodderbergh(sp?) went to SOOOOOOOO damn much trouble to make this film 'authentic' as far as equipment, lighting, basic visual style, etc. And then to go and throw in what I felt was very modern day type talking and thinking... Just like you said above... Takes you RIGHT the hell out of the film. Too bad...
ILOVEtrading films!I've got a HUGE..uh..collection!Please ask!
____L@th3
I agree. The whole film had a throwback film noir type feel, and then someone drops the f-bomb and reminds me that it is a film in the 2000s. Works well for Resevoir Dogs, not so much here.
Deterrence is the art of producing in the mind of the enemy... the fear to attack
Funny, Sodderbergh(sp?) went to SOOOOOOOO damn much trouble to make this film 'authentic' as far as equipment, lighting, basic visual style, etc. And then to go and throw in what I felt was very modern day type talking and thinking... Just like you said above... Takes you RIGHT the hell out of the film. Too bad...
You make a good point... Absolutely that stuff WAS indeed going on, and far 'worse' I'm sure. BUT... and to me, it is a HUGE BUT like Mariah Carey's... When you are a fan or used to what are considered 'Classic' films of a certain type or Genre (Film Noir, old Westerns, etc...) a person may enjoy how films were made during those times. I know that for me personally, if I sit down to watch a classic Noir film with Humphrey Bogart, such as 'THE BIG SLEEP' for example (and it might be considered a tad racy for it's time...) I, myself, do NOT want to hear F-bombs, etc. To me, it just doesn't fit the mood of the 500 or so Film Noir movies that were made at that time. I guess a person has to determine whether they want to see how things 'REALLY WERE' at that time in raw detail, which is fine if that is what you want, or whether they enjoy perhaps the more 'Typical' way movies were made at a certain time.
In a somewhat similar principle, take Horror films. Now, some people REALLY get off on the more brutally 'Realistic' type of Horror that has been in many more recent films of late. THAT is the way they enjoy their Horror movies. For myself, I gravitate toward the more moody, even more Fanciful or Supernaturally themed Horror films, as opposed to the more gritty 'Realism' that a lot of people like. I find that a lot more entertaining. I REALLY do like Horror films that have a Heavy Psychological feel, like the awesome 'SESSION 9', for example. Or even some of David Lynch's films where some things can be portrayed in a brutally realistic way, but the underlying themes and mood are FAR from 'Realistic'. Just my personal taste...
So, sort of similarly with this film... I'm not watching this film to see how crude people likely spoke and acted back then (like they always have) But, I'm watching this movie to enjoy the way it was made and the 'authentic' feel, as usually depicted in films of that era. So, to me, it seems that since the director clearly WAS indeed going to a LOT of trouble to replicate the exact look and feel of films made at that time, I just felt, myself, that it was a shame that he didn't take that concept all the way through the movie in it's content, as well. So, since I wasn't expecting the crudeness in either language or sexual content, I felt that to me it was quite jarring and unnecessary. But, that is probably just because that is what I like and prefer for this kind of film.
So, I guess that it just comes down to personal preference, whether you are the kind of person who appreciates more direct 'Realism' in their films, no matter the Genre, and any kind of 'sugar-coating' or unrealistic depictions would honestly take away from the movie for them, OR, whether like me, although there are certainly films where I appreciate the Realism or true authenticity, I just prefer to watch films more for the stylistic entertainment value, based upon my own taste (or lack of...) rather than seeing the depiction of stark, gritty 'Realism'...
I now have over 7000 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!
When you are a fan or used to what are considered 'Classic' films of a certain type or Genre (Film Noir, old Westerns, etc...) a person may enjoy how films were made during those times. I know that for me personally, if I sit down to watch a classic Noir film with Humphrey Bogart, such as 'THE BIG SLEEP' for example (and it might be considered a tad racy for it's time...) I, myself, do NOT want to hear F-bombs, etc.
In a somewhat similar principle, take Horror films. Now, some people REALLY get off on the more brutally 'Realistic' type of Horror that has been in many more recent films of late. THAT is the way they enjoy their Horror movies. For myself, I gravitate toward the more moody, even more Fanciful or Supernaturally themed Horror films, as opposed to the more gritty 'Realism' that a lot of people like. I find that a lot more entertaining.
Heh..., well I certainly appreciate the kind reply. I guess we DO agree on a couple of things
Appreciate your insightful thoughts on these things. And, you DO make a good point too in that perhaps Soderbergh and company were indeed NOT trying to put across the film in the way that maybe I expected, and it was more like you say, to expose all the unpleasant post-war stuff that did go on.
Good catch...
I think my personal take on film in general is that I am governed primarily by MOOD and tone above all else. And, maybe add to that the stylistic touches that a director / cinematographer / writer may employ. My favourite films of any Genre are usually ones saturated in mood and atmosphere, be it the lovely dark shadows of 'STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR' (1940 - a film where the highly stylized, stark B&W / Shadow cinematography were created by many of the same people who also were behind 'CITIZEN KANE') or the absolute beauty of 'BLADE RUNNER' (clearly with strong visual Noir overtones, not to mention the original version with voice-over narration), the deeply Psychological Horror film 'SESSION 9' (one of my all time favourites) to the dark, Surreal, Nightmarish subconscious underworld of David Lynch's films, to the absolute BLAST of films like 'REANIMATOR', to the steely-cool of the 'TERMINATOR' films, to the exquisite Gothic, loveliness of the original 'JANE EYRE' (1943 - I normally do not care for straight family / people Drama, but this stunning work with two of what I consider the most outstanding performances ever, is an awesome exception)
...Okay... uh, I think I got a bit carried away... now, WHAT the hell was I talking about...???
Cheers mate!
I now have over 7000 films; many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!
Thank goodness I'm not alone with thinking that the swearing was so out of place... And I rate the movie 5.5/10.0...
share[deleted]
Strangely enough people did swear quite a bit in the nineteen forties and fifties..especially in army related contexts.
shareNo-one is denying that the GIs didn't swear or have sex it's just that the ones in this style of movie don't.
shareI started to watch the first maybe 40 minutes but with all the cursing, the sex and maguire's behavior I couldnt watch anymore. I guess if Soderbergh wanted to make a film from the 40's and 50's (he went through all the trouble with using studio sets and equipment) so why stop there? I wouldve enjoyed very much a 50's noir film with Clooney and Blanchet but the cursing was almost non stop and I didnt need to see the stripper or whatever, like someone before me said its acceptable in other flicks but for me ruined it. I respect the effort, I'll give it another shot.
I am a jedi, like my father before me
I agree about Tobey Maguire...he was so annoying...it was distracting and I was glad when he died.
share[deleted]
Not so much the swearing, but the DEPLORABLE acting of Maguire. He was awful. After watching this, I wonder if he is handicapped.
share[deleted]
Just to add to the above. I am Australian, a country of swearers, and swear like a trooper myself. I have worked on building sites, wharves, in pubs, factories and truck depots so I've heard my fair share. It has never worried me in real life or in films and like one of the posts above I love the 'Sopranos' and other shows where the swearing is in context. My favourite show in Australia at the moment is 'Underbelly'; no shrinking swearing violets there. It is not however in context in this film. I could have worn one or two f-words at opportune times and surprisingly the c-word from the Scottish barman I considered appropriate; Scots do use that word interminably. But the f-word used so many times jarred the rest of what was a fantastic remake of 40's noir - the soundtrack, the cinematography, the lighting, everything was spot on except that. I don't know if it came from the novel so I may stand corrected but it seemed way out of place.
On the film itself, I had heard all the mediocre reviews and was very pleasantly surprised. If you had an assignment to recreate the feel and mood of a 40's noir you could not do better than Soderbergh did here. The post before who talks about driving a jeep with a broken arm misses the whole point or has not seen old noir films. It used back screen projection like all the old films and every anti-hero in those films was beaten numerous times to within an inch of their lives and then drove to the next altercation. I think also a lot of critics view original noir films with rose coloured glasses sometimes. If this film had come out in the 40's (without the swearing of course) it would be considered a classic by now and will be in the future.
One more thing. And it's picky! Pick up Cate B slipping into the Australian actor's usual Oirish accent when she says 'Gestapo' near the end.
Beautifully said. Thank you!
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"
When first hearing the offensive dialog it was jarring -- it didn't fit the time period of 1945 -- even if it was realistic and germain to the story. I'd have preferred the movie to be authentic in the dialog as it was in so many other places. Tobey driving the jeep -- keeps moving the steering wheel excessively like an amateur actor in front of the screen projection behind them. It was a homage to the old way of making movies, and if the modern usage of vulgarity wasn't there, it would have helped the illusion.
I miss Big Band music and talented singers. Leonard Cohen is my idol. Civility, harmony, unity!
I totally agree Grumpy... the swearing... EVEN if it was used in very small circles at the time, certainly would NEVER have been appropriate in any film because of the Hayes Act and censorship.. so from that point alone, the swearing stood out as very odd.
The Toby McGuire character is a matter of opinion.. my take is that he was totally unconvincing as the tough character he was supposed to be playing. Where was the casting director that day? He is just too baby faced and wide-eyed to play this type of mug. I would have liked a Mark Wahlberg type for that role. Toby was fine as Spiderman because that character is a nerds dream alter ego. For this film, he was just a nerd talking tough and dirty. Sorry, it made the swearing that much more unbelievable. I could almost guarantee neither Toby or Clooney use that kind of language in their everyday lives... so why in this film?
I don't get it.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"
Being only twenty-three, I can't comment on the historical accuracy of the language in this movie, but I'm utterly amazed that people are objecting to it on the basis that it doesn't fit the pastiche 40s/50s style; I thought that was the whole damn point of employing such a conceit. I must confess that I'm a bit of a philistine when it comes to pre-60s cinema, but I believe I'm right in saying that not many films of that era depicted rape; and more to the point, not many films of that era depicted the U.S. military ASSASSINATING POTENTIAL WAR-CRIME WITNESSES IN ORDER TO FURTHER THEIR SINISTER EFFORTS TO SIPHON OFF NAZI WEAPON SCIENTISTS. Certainly not Hollywood movies, anyway.
Soderbergh is an intelligent director and a challenging one, and I don't think he meant this movie to be a dry exercise in style; an object of mere kitsch value. It's supposed to make the audience examine their assumptions about the genre - about the way the war and its aftermath were marketed to the public - and ultimately about the environment that informed the genre.
P.S. I almost missed that comment about Clooney and Maguire not using such language in their everyday lives. Is it also worth pointing out that neither Clooney nor Maguire are actually U.S. soldiers stationed in post-war Berlin, either? Who CAST this movie?!
You may be only 23, but your comment is intelligent, insightful and makes perfect sense. Thanks for adding to this.
I do think the director of this film got into trouble when he made the statement that they wanted this film to have the look and feel of the 1940s. The cinematography, costumes and sets were fantastic and do evoke the period of the film... but again, the constant use of the "F bomb" becomes a joke here because they are just using it too damned much. It becomes a huge distraction to the script. The film should rely far more on the power of the actors performance to show determination, anger and frustrations of war.. of which the actors are clearly capable, than for them to become "potty mouths" for the sake of shock value.
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"
Wow, I'm actually really touched that you responded so courteously; obviously I've spent too long on the IMDB message boards.
I suppose all I can add is that, seeing as how I have no first-hand experience of the era to act as a frame of reference for this movie, I had no trouble taking its depiction of contemporary speech at face value. Obviously, the same is not true in your case, but I wonder how many people are in the same position as me and reacted to the language purely on the basis that it didn't conform to their aesthetic expectations of the film. I'm being presumptuous here, but that's exactly the sort of uncritical attitude that annoys me, and which I want to challenge whenever I encounter it.
I'm also reminded of the controversy surrounding the language in Deadwood. I remember a lot of debate on here about whether it was historically accurate or just a shock tactic. People on both sides kept citing all kinds of records, but no one could agree.
We all can disagree... and other points of view have as much merit as mine many times. I think it's mutual respect that's the main thing. Contrasting points of view are healthy... that's why we all like different films and movies continue to be made on such a variety of subjects. They all have something to say. Story telling is not always the same for everyone... either in the way they tell it or in the way they want to hear it in a film.
I do think your angle has merit, however and I think your idea of them using contemporary speech MAY have made this story more accessable to a younger audience. I think your response was very insightful and I appreciated that you were able to relay your point of view where I saw that possiblity. Thanks!
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown!"
[deleted]
"I could almost guarantee neither Toby or Clooney use that kind of language in their everyday lives... so why in this film?"
They were both playing roles, not themselves. The lines spoken by their characters were actually written by a screenwriter.
Your assumption about their personal speech is based upon...what? I've never met an actor who hesitated to decorate their casual speech with colorful expletives. But then, I'm from New York, not the Bible-belt backwoods that seems to have shaped you.
As for your contention that the four-letter "F" word was virtually unknown to adult males in the WW2 era (previously expressed in posts that you've recently deleted), what do you suppose SNAFU and FUBAR, both popularized during that era, stood for? Do you really think everyone interpreted FU as "fouled up?"
From westhamu
"I could have worn one or two f-words at opportune times and surprisingly the c-word from the Scottish barman I considered appropriate; Scots do use that word interminably."
I know I am late to respond, but only just watched the DVD and came here to see what it was supposedly all about!
I thought the bar owner -(Danny - bit of a giveaway that!) - was Irish - but then like any other countryman of the former English Colonies - he would be prone to using 'that word' interminably!
The bigger question was how an 'Irish' bar was set up so swiftly in post-war Berlin. I realise that now there are hardly any countries in the world, which allow alcohol, that don't have an Irish Bar - but this was definitely a pioneering effort!
Oh yes, are you sure Cate didn't slip into a Scottish accent when she said 'Gestapo'?
rcaproductions --
I'll be 60 this year. My Dad, a WW2 vet, played poker with Army buddies in our basement once a week. Despite constant "language" cautions from my mom, I only had to crack the door to hear every word from these guys.
If they spoke in the 40s anything like they did in the 50s, then you, son, are full of s--t!
Your opinion that the "f-word" was used "only by drunks, bums and tasteless characters on skid row" is ridiculous. Dorothy Parker was on her honeymoon in 1917 when her Vanity Fair editor started bugging her about a late manuscript. It is well-documented that her famous reply was "Too effing busy -- or vice versa." That was a *woman* in a *business exchange* during WW1!!
We may be about the same age, but, unlike me, you are stupid enough to believe that what you heard while growing up was reflective of how adults spoke when you weren't around. Nuts!
[deleted]
Your estimation of Dorothy Parker indicates that you are probably a barefoot Appalachian mountain child, but never mind that...
Instead, explain to me the use of the acronyms SNAFU and FUBAR, both of which became widespread in the WW2 era, and in both of which the letter F is well-known to stand for a word other than "fark." Both acronyms were used widely in polite company; Glenn Miller even recorded an instrumental called "SNAFU Jump." If that's not an indication of casual acquaintance with the f-word, what is it?
When innocents like yourself asked what FUBAR meant, they were told "fouled up beyond all recognition," but you know as well as I that no adult interpreted FU as "fouled up."
It may be hard to believe, but your dad's 80-year-old buds are STILL sheltering their buddy's kid from nasty reality! lol!
You may be proving the naysayers' point: F-bombs were limited to acronyms. Nobody said them out loud, certainly not in mixed company.
share
rcaproductions, I don't think you're gonna find that in any history book their, buddy. But if you watch the film again, it's mostly McGuire who uses the "F" word in excess, and He was a drunk, tasteless character.
Clooney really only uses it when he's extremely heated a few times, and as this is supposed to be an out-of-the-ordinary case that he is following, I think it's fair to say that he might forget his place among the kindly fellows of the 1940's and throw an "F" word or two out there in frustration.
At least, that seems reasonable to me.
There will never be anyone quite like Audrey Hepburn
[deleted]
No problem. And I wasn't around back then, so I can't argue that point, but the way you just described him was exactly how I saw it: A kid trying to act like one of the big boys.
I think it is a staple of young boys and men. I know in my coming of age years I definitely swore a lot, I suppose to prove myself by some degree that I was in fact, a man, haha. Seems silly now, but in that respect, that's why I was able to accept McGuire's character.
There will never be anyone quite like Audrey Hepburn
...and yet no one here has a problem with the violence. What a double standard!
The topic was called "swearing", so why would we bring up violence?
But now that you mention it...
Actually, I do have a problem with the way the sex and violence were depicted in the movie. The director said he wanted to make a 40's type noir piece. He didn't. Most of the violence and sex in those movies took place off screen.
Although reading that they were supposed to give "Stagey" performances, the only person who did that was Cate Blanchett. Everyone else simply acted too modern.
To me, he didn't make a "40's" movie. He filmed a modern day period piece and color corrected (graded) it to look black and white.
I have no problem with swearing in a movie that takes place in the 40's. They swore back then too. I'm all for realism as much as possible.
Who cares that people today aren't used to hearing it from movies taking place in that era? No movies had foul language until the late 60's or early 70's, so of course movies in the 40's didn't have this kind of language. But this isn't a movie from the 40's. It's a movie that takes place in the 40's.
I think it's appropriate to show that the people back then were very much like us and not like bogart, "here's looking at you kid" and lame stuff like that.
Yeah, but the director WANTED the film to look like was made back then, not now. WAKE UP!
share[deleted]
The point was not that people in the 1940s didn't swear, but rather that people in 1940s *films* didn't swear. That's what makes it jarring, although Tobey McGuire's screechy performance didn't help.
I also disagree about the "film noir" look of this film. The lighting is very harsh (and not flattering to Blanchett at all) and looks much more like a documentary of the period, rather than the warmer tones of a period film. I suppose Soderbergh was trying to make a grittier version of those romantic films, but I just thought this was a swing and a miss.
Pauladev
I know you're being sooo sarcastic but the barman was Scottish; and some Scots are called Danny - normally the ones who support Celtic. Not all Irishman are Danny, by the way. Some are called Pat but that's the extent of their nomenclature, I think.
I'll admit 'interminably' was a wank but I was pissed. Forgive me.
And yes I'm sure Cat Blanket morphed into a poxy Oirish/Aussie Heinz.
Just tell me your nationality. I have a book running.