Films/DVD Asylum

Movies from comedy to drama to your favorite Hollyweird Star.

Use this form to submit comments directly to the Asylum moderators for this forum. We're particularly interested in truly outstanding posts that might be added to our FAQs.
You may also use this form to provide feedback or to call attention to messages that may be in violation of our content rules.

You must login to use this feature.

Inmate Login

By default, logging in will set a session cookie that disappears when you close your browser. Clicking on the 'Remember my Moniker & Password' below will cause a permanent 'Login Cookie' to be set.

Moniker/Username: The Name that you picked or by default, your email. Forgot Moniker?	Examples "Rapper", "Bob W", "joe@aol.com".
Password:	Forgot Password?
	Remember my Moniker & Password ( What's this?)

If you don't have an Asylum Account, you can create one by clicking Here.

Our privacy policy can be reviewed by clicking Here.

Inmate Comments

From:
Your Email:
Subject:

Message Comments

Original Message

It was URBAN Vietnam, and a bombed out, rubble-laden city. There were

Posted by tinear on July 3, 2011 at 11:31:42:
plenty of characters in the film, Joker was merely one, though he was the central one. He certainly was as central as was Dave in 2001 (some argue Hal was the true central character of that segment).
Few films I've ever seen have conveyed the anguish, the horror, of war as did FMJ.
SPOILER:
The dilemma of rescuing a wounded comrade, and that meant certain death or injury for the rescuer, was one of the most indelible and moving scenes I've ever witnessed. Add to that the great skills of Kubrick that enhanced the power...
Back to the poor argument about central characters being key to Kubrick: what of "Dr. Strangelove?" And "Lolita?"
The fact is, Kubrick's greatness has nothing to do with his portrayal of characters; in fact, a well-worn criticism of Stanley is precisely THAT: his superficial treatment of them, subjugating them to directorial pyrotechnics.
Also, Kubrick's characters seldom, if ever, speak brilliantly. He didn't care about dialogue, pure and simple. He also didn't care for powerful performances: actors were stage pieces (Paths of Glory being an exception; note that Stanley picked a Hollywood hack to star in"Barry Lyndon"). Again, 2001 is ALL clich�. I can't think of a Kubrick film where there is witty, brilliant dialogue, with the possible exception of "Lolita;" that, however, was because of Nabokov!

The brilliance of FMJ precisely is its originality. It doesn't follow the typical rah-rah war film nor does it tread the anti-war path: it is an original take on the genre. It shows how war debilitates men from the inside, unlike Paths of Glory that showed how the command structure led to inhumanity. In FMJ, we see how the corrupting influence of life-and-death pressure leads "free" men to inhuman acts, voluntarily. It is a highly disturbing film with no positive "message." In this, it returns to one of the central questions raised in 2001: is there some deep flaw inherent in humans?