The Truth About ‘Pearl Harbor’: An In-Depth Analysis (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Pounds]

The script was lacking. Period. Dialog and scenes were awkward and unconnected. Many scenes involving the "Love Triangle" were forced and artificial. To contrast to Titanic, Cameron's film and script wove the romance into the disaster setting with great skill, with quite a bit of grace and seamlessness. There were no stumbles as they shifted from the plight of two star-crossed lovers madly in love with one another to the larger scope of 2200 people's peril in the most famous accident-disaster of the early 20th Century. The two stories (the disaster and the romance) fit hand in glove, and the result was a very impressive movie.

This is an excellent point and my main quabble with the film. I just rented and watched this for the first time this past weekend.

I had no problem with any dramatic licence B&B took with the events...I thought that the 3 battle sequences -- Battle of Britain, PH and Tokyo raid, were all spectacular to watch. They could have been even better if Bay could hold a cut for more than about 5 seconds.

But the "story" and the dialoge was absolulty awful -- it was chalked full of cliches and bad lines. The way Alec Baldwin was delivering his horrid lines, I was waiting for him to turn to Ben Affleck and say, "isn't that right....Canteen Boy..."

I'm not even going to get into Ben Afflecks' 90s-style highlighted hair. What the heck was that?

I remember going into Titanic expecting not to like it because of the romance aspect, but I was plesantly surprised and really enjoying it. Now, there's no way that thing was Best Picture, but I enjoyed the film, none the less. Bottom line is that it had a soild, beliveable script that was delivered by the actors.

I went into PH not expecting much and couldn't belive that it was much worse than I even imagined.

 

[Rich Malloy]

Yes, I agree that Tora, Tora, Tora is lifeless. It’s like the video version of an encyclopedia. But with most films filmed in documentary style, I would put this film in a different class and not worry too much about its cinematic value. The film accomplished what it had set out to do in the first place.

Sometimes, you're much more forgiving than I, Edwin... like right now! For me, there's no "different class" of films that are to be considered without reference to their cinematic value. For me, if a film has no cinematic value, it has no value whatsoever. And in terms of teaching/learning history, there are far more fruitful ways to spend three hours.
I think what "Tora!" set out to accomplish, rather explicitly, was to make a companion piece to "The Longest Day". Just as "Titanic" was the model for "Pearl Harbor", "The Longest Day" was the model for "Tora!".
And while neither "Titanic" nor "The Longest Day" qualify as great cinema, they are both leagues beyond the rather meager accomplishments of their imitators.
"Crap is crap". And you can quote me on that! And the further we get from an honest assessment of crap like "Pearl Harbor" - and this includes attempts to justify it on considerations other than its merits as a film - then, the more crappy films we'll have to endure. And the big-budgeted nature of these crapfests - where studios essentially bet their existence on their success or failure - creates a "race to the bottom" mindset, where all appeal is focused upon the lowest common denominator and artistic decisions are left to the whims of focus groups, executives and the marketing department. Pearl Harbor is a symptom of this, to be sure, but every dollar it earns and every profit it brings does nothing more than confirm the notion that this is how to make money... er, I mean movies.

 

[Mark Pfeiffer]

Patrick said:

perhaps B&B had to compromise a little too much in delivering this film under the Disney banner,
with the PG-13 rating. Frankly, any decent war film should not garner a PG-13 rating if your intention is to depict faithfully the battles and consequences on human life/casualties of war.

Blaming Disney isn't fair as I think any studio would have mandated a PG-13 rating. You make an event movie like this, you don't want to limit your audience.
As for the argument that war films need to be graphic in the depictions of the atrocities and bludgeon the audience, I don't agree. While the physical damage is readily apparent, I think it's just as valid to demonstrate the psychological and emotional toll. I also think this makes it more relatable for the audience. Sure, seeing non-stop carnage on the battlefields gives us visions most of us have never seen in real life, but is it so necessary to see that stuff to realize what happens? One need not have engaged in hand to hand warfare to understand how awful it can be.
For example, The Bridges at Toko-Ri doesn't have to utilize explicit violence to show the damage done to William Holden's character or his family. Just my opinion.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Al, many people don't consider PH as "crap." I don't. So, mu honest assessment is that it is a good film, not a great one. I understand it is to be reviewed harder than, say, The Mummy Returns, because it is based on a real event. But just because some of us defend our decision to enjoy it, doesn't mean we are trying to use different criteria. And many of my friends here at HTF will disagree, but I do consider TITANIC great cinema, and a modern masterpiece.

Mark Pf, I completely agree with your earlier assessments of the story and whatnot.

Edwin, again, I thank you for your time.

Lawrence Suid is very likely a dry, professor-type who only clinically understands battle in a historical sense (but I could be wrong). He is probably correct in his technical assessments, but I HIGHLY doubt he understands the demands of a movie, or the intention of the filmmaker.

Take care,

Chuck

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Quote:

I’m afraid we’re already there and that there is no turning back. However, as long as there is a market for independent, foreign, art and alternative films then maybe we can still keep getting films that strive for artistic merit.
This brings me to my next question, for someone who enjoys cinematic films, how come your participation is noticeably missing in this thread specifically dedicated to this cause?
~Edwin

 

[Rich Malloy]

This brings me to my next question, for someone who enjoys cinematic films, how come your participation is noticeably missing in this thread specifically dedicated to this cause?

I don't agree with the notion that "cinematic" films equate with "Alternative, Art, Foreign and Independent". I don't put much weight in any of those categories, and I don't understand why they must be so segregated. After all, the same Hollywood studios that put out crap like Pearl Harbor also release films like "A.I." and "The Straight Story" (to name just a couple of my favorites from recent years).

I participate in many threads about particular films, but I'm not really interested in segregating them in a way that I view as artificial - e.g., this is an "art movie", this is an "independent movie". etc. I even wrote a big rant that I never posted about why Peter Travers felt the need to write-up two separate top-10 lists (one for studios, the other for independents). It's as though people have a different set of standards and expectations for both. I don't. I simply want to see a good movie and I don't care about its country of origin or which studio financed it. A good movie is a good movie, regardless of these artificial distinctions.

And the term "cinematic" is far too broad and generalized to represent any particular aesthetic criteria, much less to exclude everything but "art, independent, foreign" or whatever. I employed it only to suggest what TORA TORA TORA was not. There are many "indie" and art films that are also resolutely un-cinematic.

And "Pearl Harbor", to its meager credit, is certainly "cinematic" in precisely the way "Tora!" is not. Indeed, it could stand at the end of a long line of great wartime romances that Hollywood has produced - films like "Casablanca" or "From Here to Eternity", or even "Gone with the Wind". But where's the sophistication? The wit? The true emotion? Why the cliche-speak? Why the dumbed-down characters? Why is every word either clunky exposition or banal dudespeak?

Put on any of the classic Hollywood romances and marvel at the wit and sophistication of the dialog, the depth of the psychological portrayals, and the endless subtext. I'm no anti-Hollywood warrior. I hate what the studios have largely become today, but I remember their brilliance and I still see it peek through every now and again. I, too, have nothing against "good, solid, entertaining, and intelligent escapism". In fact, I love that stuff and wish we had more of it!

 

[Jeff Pounds]

But where's the sophistication? The wit? The true emotion? Why the cliche-speak? Why the dumbed-down characters? Why is every word either clunky exposition or banal dudespeak?

I agree whole-heartedly. After commenting in this thread earlier, I went home for lunch and looked again at a few key sequences in this film. (I rented it from Hollywood Video on Sunday, so I still have it.)

Here's just a few examples of what is littered all through the film:

After Ben Affleck's and Josh Hartnett's characters are flying during the PH bombing, they are getting ready to engage the Zeros and Affleck says, "Let's do some business"....or something to that effect.

Later on he blathers something like "It's not so fun to get shot back at, is it?!"...

This kind of 90s-era "trash talk" was rife through the combat sequences...they were so bad they completly drew me out of the film.

Another example is at one point earlier in the film, Kate Beckensale's fellow nurses admonish her when she won't go out with them...one says, "Could you be any more boring?"....uggg!

1990s style sarcasm spoken by women in 1941? I don't think so.

This was so bad throughout the film that I couldn't help but laugh every time it happened...completely taking away from the emotional impact of what was happening.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Neither do I! But Pearl Harbor is none of those.

While I will defend Pearl Harbor against criticisms of historically inaccuracy and being disrespectful to Pearl Harbor veterans, overall, I still found the film to be average at best.
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Lawrence Suid is very likely a dry, professor-type who only clinically understands battle in a historical sense (but I could be wrong). He is probably correct in his technical assessments, but I HIGHLY doubt he understands the demands of a movie, or the intention of the filmmaker.

I am very tempted to get the video that aired on C-Span when he and other historians talked about Pearl Harbor. I wonder how cinematic that one was? While Mr. Suid may be a well-versed historian, he probably doesn’t know one iota about filmmaking.
~Edwin

 

[Danny_N]

Lawrence Suid wrote several books on war movies:

Sailing On The Silver Screen: Hollywood And The US Navy

Guts & Glory: Great American War Movies

Film And Propaganda In America

So it seems that he does know something about movies.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Lawrence Suid wrote several books on war movies:
Sailing On The Silver Screen: Hollywood And The US Navy
Guts & Glory: Great American War Movies
Film And Propaganda In America
So it seems that he does know something about movies.

Filmmaking - Such as screenwriting, directing, cinematography, getting films financed and distributed, etc. That's what I was talking about. I am very well aware of those other books he had written.
~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

While Mr. Suid may be a well-versed historian, he probably doesn’t know one iota about filmmaking.

Edwin,

Regarding the knowledge of filmmaking, the same thing can be said about most of the participants in this thread!

Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Regarding the knowledge of filmmaking, the same thing can be said about most of the participants in this thread!

True, but I'm not the one complaining about historical inaccuracies in films to the most minute detail such as that the battleships on Pearl Harbor should not have been more than 50 yards apart from each other.
~Edwin

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

If Mr. Suid thinks that he can do a better film about Pearl Harbor with any omission of fact or inaccuracies and still be grand cinema, I’ll be there to watch it.

~Edwin

 

[Robert Crawford]

True, but I'm not the one complaining about historical inaccuracies in films to the most minute detail such as that the battleships on Pearl Harbor should not have been more than 50 yards apart from each other.

So this guy isn't entitled to express his opinion regarding historical inaccuracies because you're assuming he doesn't know a thing about filmmaking??????? Since much of this film was CGI anyhow, several of his complaints about this film could have easily been corrected if a little more attention to detail was taken. Since this guy's a military historian, I'm sure his pet peeves about this issue are to the extreme but that shouldn't detract from some of his valid concerns.

Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

Of course his points are valid. But whether they are reasonable within the context of what we are talking about here is another matter. You yourself aready said that they are extreme.

~Edwin

 

[DaveF]

True, but I'm not the one complaining about historical inaccuracies in films to the most minute detail such as that the battleships on Pearl Harbor should not have been more than 50 yards apart from each other.

Edwin, I've enjoyed reading your comments in this thread, and found them well written. But I think you betray your original motives here.

Both you and Prof. Luid have the same basic interest: seeking and encouraging factual accuracy in historical movies. It seems odd that you would then use the polemic of "Yeah but I bet can't he can't make a good movie" rather than addressing his (legitimate) criticisms of PH's treatment of history.

As for the spacing of the ships, that critique seemed the most significant, of those in his essay. If I understand, in the movie the ships were artificially distanced, providing space for the Japanese planes to fly between them in stunning feats of dogfighting. Though that may be fun viewing, it seems wildly deviant from how they actually flew. It is creating military tactics that didn't exist, and revising history.

The larger issue is whether history should be revised to entertain us. While I have no issue with historical fiction, I think it's dangerous to distort the facts while claiming accuracy. Tell the truth or tell a fiction tale with elements of reality. But don't do one and claim to have done the other.

I'll leave it to the film-makers to figure out how to make history come alive. [heavy sarcasm on]It's surely difficult though. Look how tedious and banal the experiences of: 9/11, the explosion of the shuttle Challenger, and assassination of JFK were to those who witnessed. Yep, without revision, historical events carry no emotional impact.[/heavy sarcasm off]

 

[Robert Crawford]

Of course his points are valid. But whether they are reasonable within the context of what we are talking about here is another matter. You yourself aready said that they are extreme.

I said some of his issues are extreme but he also has some valid concerns!

Crawdaddy

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

In the cinematic re-creation, Miller fires repeatedly at the attacking planes as they swoop down to deck level between two battleships—with his guns clearly pointing directly at a ship 50 yards away.

I’m glad I am not the only one who noticed this as it seems ridiculous that Cuba Gooding Jr.’s character would be firing those guns aimed at a U.S. ship directly across from him. However, is this an inaccuracy or simply a mistake in the placement of the cameras? I would like to think that it is the latter and that this was simply an editing faux pas. But in the end, to me, it doesn’t matter. It was the human emotion conveyed by Cuba Gooding Jr. that was far more important.
I have already addressed his other concerns including omissions of fact and events in which the three fictional central characters are directly involved. And rather than repeat myself, please refer back to my original post.
In the end, if one still has problems with a film and is still unwilling to make concessions regarding minor historical inaccuracies, even though a film such as Pearl Harbor was overwhelmingly endorsed by those it was meant to honor in the first place – i.e. the Pearl Harbor veterans, then that person is very much entitled to his own opinion. I would have to stop further discussions, shake that person’s hand and gladly excuse myself from further debate.
~Edwin

 

[Jeff Kleist]

For the record, I love Michael Bay movies

Pearl Harbor was a bad film until the attack, and it's a bad film after. Because that's when Bay is out of his element. They should have just remade Midway