Simon Rosbottom
|
Mike, a little harder than a hospital wall, eh?
|
||||||||||||
_________________ Simon |
The Scorer
|
I've just started to read this, and naturally went straight to the chapter on "Zulu".
I have to say that it's pretty good, although I must qualify that by saying that I'm not keen (or very good at) resding hidden meanings into films ... sometimes a film is just a film is my way of thinking, to be honest. However, it's a useful look at the reason the film was made, and the advice given by our friend Sheldon is mentioned several times. It's interesting to read what people thought about the film at the time, many of which were, of course, full of praise. It also, though, makes the point that it's unwise to look at a film made about one era with the attitudes that were prevelant at the time that the film was made. This, of course, applies to us even more now, as the world of 2008 is very different from that of 1964, which was different from that of 1879. It's a good book, though, and I would recommend it. I've also read the chapter on "A Night to Remember", and will move on shortly to the one of "Chariots of Fire" - and then I'll read the rest! |
||||||||||||
|
Sheldon Hall
|
Hi Scorer,
I'm not sure what "hidden meanings" you think James is finding in the film, nor am I clear what you mean by "a film is just a film" (as opposed to what?). If you mean he discusses aspects of the film you hadn't thought about, or seen the same way, that's not finding hidden meanings (and what is a "hidden" meaning, anyway?), it's just bringing a fresh perspective to bear on a familiar subject - which is what critics are there for! |
||||||||||||
|
The Scorer
|
I probably didn't explain myself properly in my review, so I'm not surprised to hear from someone about it, to be honest - and no offence taken, of course!
To take the "film is just a film" comment first, I prefer to watch a film that just tells the story of what happened, be it fictional or factual - or, in fact, a mixture of both. So, some of my favourite films (apart from "Zulu") can be based on fact (or so it is claimed), but just tell the story. An example of this is "The Eagle has Landed", which Jack Higgins claims is based on fact, but we'll probably never know exactly what happened. It's true that seeing something new about a film isn't a hidden meaning. However, some of the comments by the critics (but, I hasten to add, not by James Chapman) seem to be a little over the top. I'm particularly referring to those of Raymond Durgnat, who certainly seems to be reading things into the film that aren't there - Stanley Baker's up-from-the-ranks portrayal of Chard, for example which, apart from being untrue, isn't something that anyone else has seen, I think. I hope that this explains my reasons for saying what I said ... and, I will say again, that it's a good book, and I think well worth reading. |
||||||||||||
|
Past And Present. By James Chapman |
|
||
Powered by phpBB © 2001-2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.
phpBB Style created by phpBBStyles.com and distributed by Styles Database.