John Savard
2024-04-17 23:04:21 UTC
A friend of mine took me to see the movie "The Birth of a
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are
expecting.
From its title, I was expecting a historical drama about the War
Between the States in the 1860s, and I was expecting to dislike it
because, in order to have mass appeal to U.S. audiences, it made it
seem like there were two sides to the conflict.
Instead of treating the South like the bad guys in a World War II
movie.
But it wasn't a movie about how bad Trump and the January 6 crowd
were. Modern politics does not rear its head. The President of the
United States is portrayed as looking a bit like Trump, but that's it.
Florida and Texas, states strongly supporting Trump and the Republican
Party, are two of the states leading the secession faction in this
second Civil War in the United States. But liberal California has
joined forces with Texas.
So audiences find out quickly that this movie was not ripped from
today's headlines. Fine. It shows the devastation a civil war causes;
it's hard to travel across the country, and gasoline is expensive.
And worse. So is it a non-political call for people to step back,
settle their differences peacefully, and not walk over the cliff?
Audiences are likely to think so, at least for a while.
But by the time the movie ends, the audience finally learns what kind
of movie they were watching: it waa about the movie's main characters
and their personal development. Some more than others.
Which means that audience members who were looking for a different
kind of movie will feel they've wasted the price of admission, which
is a shame, because it's not a _bad_ movie. It's actually quite a good
movie, of the kind of movie that it was. But if it had been advertised
honestly... it perhaps wouldn't have had such a big opening weekend.
John Savard
Photojournalist", which was the sequel to the infamous D. W. Griffith
film with a similar title.
Oh, what's that, that wasn't the title of the movie?
As some reviews will point out, this movie is not what audiences are
expecting.
From its title, I was expecting a historical drama about the War
Between the States in the 1860s, and I was expecting to dislike it
because, in order to have mass appeal to U.S. audiences, it made it
seem like there were two sides to the conflict.
Instead of treating the South like the bad guys in a World War II
movie.
But it wasn't a movie about how bad Trump and the January 6 crowd
were. Modern politics does not rear its head. The President of the
United States is portrayed as looking a bit like Trump, but that's it.
Florida and Texas, states strongly supporting Trump and the Republican
Party, are two of the states leading the secession faction in this
second Civil War in the United States. But liberal California has
joined forces with Texas.
So audiences find out quickly that this movie was not ripped from
today's headlines. Fine. It shows the devastation a civil war causes;
it's hard to travel across the country, and gasoline is expensive.
And worse. So is it a non-political call for people to step back,
settle their differences peacefully, and not walk over the cliff?
Audiences are likely to think so, at least for a while.
But by the time the movie ends, the audience finally learns what kind
of movie they were watching: it waa about the movie's main characters
and their personal development. Some more than others.
Which means that audience members who were looking for a different
kind of movie will feel they've wasted the price of admission, which
is a shame, because it's not a _bad_ movie. It's actually quite a good
movie, of the kind of movie that it was. But if it had been advertised
honestly... it perhaps wouldn't have had such a big opening weekend.
John Savard