tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post116792595163556182..comments2023-10-28T17:38:42.199+02:00Comments on AS UVAS NA SOLAINA: Marcos Valcárcel Lópezhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01049968324831056411noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168469381149549742007-01-10T23:49:00.000+01:002007-01-10T23:49:00.000+01:00Remata de chegarme, vía e-mail, a reseña deste lib...Remata de chegarme, vía e-mail, a reseña deste libro. E, co permiso do dono do blog, cólgoa aquí para o amigo X.M. González e para quen se terze.<BR/><BR/>Guy Westwell. _War Cinema: Hollywood on the Front Line_. Short Cuts<BR/>Introduction to Film Studies Series. London: Wallflower, 2006. 133 pp.<BR/>Illustrations, filmography, bibliography, index. $20.00 (paper), ISBN<BR/>1-904764-54-1.<BR/><BR/>Reviewed for H-War by Lisa Mundey, U.S. Army Center of<BR/>Military History.<BR/><BR/>A Militant Hollywood<BR/><BR/>_War Cinema_ is part of the Short Cuts Series, a sequence of compact<BR/>introductory survey texts for various aspects of film studies. Guy<BR/>Westwell, Senior Lecturer in Film Studies at London Metropolitan<BR/>University, provides a well-researched survey of contemporary war film<BR/>scholarship, particularly focused on American cinema. It is primarily<BR/>geared toward students of film studies and popular culture. Given the<BR/>target audience, Westwell assumes the reader is familiar with such ideas<BR/>as Benedict Anderson's "imagined communities," Antonio Gramsci's theory<BR/>on hegemony, and other critical discourses. He also presumes that the<BR/>readers have a basic knowledge of film terminology and concepts, such as<BR/>"genre" and "auteur," and American history. Nevertheless, the text is<BR/>not overly laden with jargon, so a non-expert can understand it.<BR/><BR/>Westwell rejects the idea that war films are entertainment and argues<BR/>that cinema and audiences have a complex relationship, which he<BR/>describes as a cultural imagination about war. In _War Cinema_, Westwell<BR/>constructs a history of twentieth-century film cycles, capturing<BR/>Hollywood's changing cultural imagination about war. Reflecting the<BR/>overall state of film scholarship and his own predisposition, Westwell<BR/>critiques Hollywood for its tendency to mythologize, construct myopic<BR/>nationalistic interpretations, and produce pro-war films.<BR/><BR/>Westwell organizes his survey of war cinema chronologically around<BR/>several distinct film cycles based on changing ideological<BR/>interpretations of war. The earliest war cinema cycle provided<BR/>nationalistic and propagandistic interpretations of war, as demonstrated<BR/>in the film _Tearing Down the Spanish Flag_ (1898) about the<BR/>Spanish-American War. Subsequent films featured the American Civil War<BR/>and the American conquest of the west, which showed manifest destiny<BR/>coming to fruition through war. The World War I film cycle initially<BR/>retained the propagandistic flair of the first war films, with an<BR/>additional glorification of the air war. In the aftermath of the war's<BR/>destruction, the dominant ideology shifted to reject the romantic<BR/>version of World War I. Reflecting this new cultural interpretation of<BR/>war, Hollywood produced films that revealed disillusionment, culminating<BR/>in _All Quiet on the Western Front_ (1930).<BR/><BR/>World War II produced new film cycles as American attitudes toward the<BR/>war changed over time. Prewar films focused on self-sacrifice and<BR/>prepared American audiences for eventual intervention. During the war,<BR/>the Office of War Information worked closely with Hollywood to produce<BR/>films with particular messages for American audiences. As Westwell<BR/>explains, the emerging cultural imagination of war was "predicated on a<BR/>powerful sense of an integrated America constructed as victim that<BR/>perceives military action to be a just and necessary response to<BR/>unwarranted aggression" (p. 43). He argues that this construct became a<BR/>template for war films created later in the twentieth century, such as<BR/>_Saving Private Ryan_ (1998). Post-World War II films largely celebrated<BR/>American victory, a tendency also repeated in World War II films created<BR/>at the end of the twentieth century.<BR/><BR/>Westwell credits the Korean War film cycle for taking cinema into new<BR/>directions of cynicism and conformity. In line with other film scholars,<BR/>Westwell presents the low-budget _The Steel Helmet_ (1951) as the<BR/>exemplar of the Korean War film. He demonstrates how this film reflects<BR/>the prevailing cultural imagination of war by its incorporation of<BR/>cynicism, racism, and anti-communism. If films convey a cultural<BR/>imagination of war, then there must be some interaction with the<BR/>audience. While _The Steel Helmet_ transmits key attitudes and messages,<BR/>it did not attract many moviegoers. Perhaps a more appropriate film to<BR/>analyze for a cultural imagination of war based on the Korean film cycle<BR/>would be _The Bridges at Tokro-Ri_ (1954), a successful film based on a<BR/>bestselling novel and magazine serial, which reached a far wider<BR/>audience.<BR/><BR/>According to Westwell, a patriotic film cycle, which includes the film<BR/>autobiography of World War II hero Audie Murphy _To Hell and Back_<BR/>(1955) and the star-studded epic recreation of D-Day _The Longest Day_<BR/>(1962), created a mythological World War II based on a "vision of<BR/>self-confident military effectiveness as a brave, disciplined, civilian<BR/>army heroically defeated the Nazis" (p. 55). This vision reflected the<BR/>dominant liberal consensus, best articulated by President John F.<BR/>Kennedy. Westwell explains that this mythological past presented an<BR/>alarming disconnect with the emerging conflict in Southeast Asia during<BR/>the 1960s. As a result, Hollywood avoided setting films directly in<BR/>Vietnam. An exception is John Wayne's _The Green Berets_(1968), which<BR/>Westwell dismisses as a World War II film set in Vietnam. Instead, he<BR/>finds Vietnam subtexts in a series of films that fellow film scholar<BR/>Jeanine Basinger, author of _The World War II Combat Film: Anatomy of a<BR/>Genre_ (2003), dubs the "dirty group" films: _The Dirty Dozen_ (1967),<BR/>_The Devil's Brigade_ (1968), and _Kelly's Heroes_ (1970).<BR/><BR/>Much film scholarship focuses on the emergence and evolution of the<BR/>Vietnam War films, and Westwell reflects this work in his evaluation of<BR/>the cultural imagination of the Vietnam War. Scholars detect in the<BR/>initial Vietnam cycle of films, such as _The Deer Hunter_ (1978) and<BR/>_Apocalypse Now_ (1979), issues of trauma, psychological duress, and<BR/>personal and national fallibility. Scholars view the second cycle of<BR/>films, which include the Rambo films, through the prism of gender<BR/>theory. Rambo, for instance, is the prime example of hyper-masculinity.<BR/>The subsequent realist cycle of Vietnam films presents the suffering<BR/>veteran as the victim of war. These films include _Platoon_ (1986),<BR/>_Hamburger Hill_ (1987), and _Born on the Fourth of July_ (1989).<BR/>Westwell argues that these Hollywood films recast Vietnam into a moral<BR/>victory. As a consequence, the American cultural imagination of war<BR/>accepted the Vietnam experience as something of value rather than a dark<BR/>chapter in the nation's history.<BR/><BR/>As a result of the Cold War's collapse and the rise of American<BR/>hegemony, Westwell asserts that the American cultural imagination of war<BR/>shifted in favor of pro-war interpretations. Westwell believes that<BR/>_Saving Private Ryan_, along with such blockbusters as _Pearl Harbor_<BR/>(2001), _We Were Soldiers_ (2002), and the television mini-series _Band<BR/>of Brothers (2001), have "reclaimed the idea of war as progressive,<BR/>necessary and ennobling" (p. 104). In addition, recent war films reflect<BR/>an inclination to fight wars for humanitarian reasons, seen in such<BR/>films as _Black Hawk Down_ (2001) and _Behind Enemy Lines_ (2001).<BR/><BR/>Westwell posits that the contemporary cultural imagination of war is<BR/>understood through four basic concepts: point of view, identity,<BR/>morality, and memory. He explains that many contemporary war films take<BR/>the veteran's point of view, focusing on a narrow personal narrative.<BR/>This point of view privileges the male experience. Westwell states that<BR/>American identity in war films centers on the threat of a dangerous and<BR/>alien enemy "other." In the morality of war films, America fights only<BR/>when gravely wronged. Americans fight for survival and virtue in a<BR/>black-and-white moral universe, which pits the forces of good against<BR/>evil. Westwell believes this cultural construct severely limits the<BR/>ability to examine complex moral, economic, political, and historic<BR/>issues with regard to war. In conjunction with the limits of the<BR/>morality construct, he asserts that America's cultural memory of war<BR/>rests on military romanticism. At the end of the volume, Westwell<BR/>explains his fear that this myopic view of the past, the nationalistic<BR/>construct of otherness, "a reconstructed masculine capability," and this<BR/>profound nostalgia for a mythological World War II "has become<BR/>justification for war in the present" (p. 115).<BR/><BR/>_War Cinema_ is an accurate survey and synthesis of current film<BR/>scholarship. Readers can benefit from this updated overview of war<BR/>films, and it is a good starting place to launch further study. It must<BR/>be kept in mind, however, that film scholars overwhelmingly focus on the<BR/>militaristic aspects of Hollywood's war films, detecting either<BR/>propaganda, the heavy hand of the Pentagon, or martial tendencies within<BR/>American culture. Although Westwell advances several cultural<BR/>imaginations of war, he does so through the images on screen rather than<BR/>through a systematic analysis of audience responses. By doing so, he<BR/>does not address those audience members who view Hollywood as a bastion<BR/>of liberals who produce anti-military, anti-war films. Other scholars<BR/>may attempt to bridge the gap between film scholarship and audience<BR/>response.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168348948514590802007-01-09T14:22:00.000+01:002007-01-09T14:22:00.000+01:00BABEL: EXTRAORDINARIA. A OBRA DUN XENIO. O MELLOR ...BABEL: EXTRAORDINARIA. A OBRA DUN XENIO. O MELLOR QUE VIN NUN CINE DENDE "DOGVILLE"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168275381234070242007-01-08T17:56:00.000+01:002007-01-08T17:56:00.000+01:00Como vexo moito interés na complexidade da polític...Como vexo moito interés na complexidade da política usa, velaí unha páxina sobre páxinas de política americana: http://www.nytimes.com/ref/politics/POLI_NAVI.html?_r=1&oref=slogin<BR/>Sobre o politólogo, que eu saiba o único (e por antonomasia, engado) é Barreiro. O outro é catedrático de derecho (con cho, non con ito) constitucional. Que non é o mesmo. O palabro politólogo soa a coña mariñeira. Con perdón. E de coñas mariñeiras o amigo Iglesias sabe un cacho.<BR/>E como estamos a falar de cinema, recomendación máxima: Babel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168033687769417502007-01-05T22:48:00.000+01:002007-01-05T22:48:00.000+01:00:-P:-PAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168028062443711212007-01-05T21:14:00.000+01:002007-01-05T21:14:00.000+01:00Non gosto deses artistas, prefiro outros.U.S.A. vo...Non gosto deses artistas, prefiro outros.<BR/>U.S.A. vocacionalmente é un país de granxeiros, de urbanitas que soñan coa granxa onde a orde natural permite correr o veo da ignorancia Rawlsiana e facer xustiza en liberdade. Pero a realidade é ben outra, os cidadáns norteamericans necesitan soñar, necesitan moito soñar o soño american, as distancias son insalbabeis sen fantasía e o velo correse para ocultar a realidade.<BR/>Jimy de RairoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168025149282569302007-01-05T20:25:00.000+01:002007-01-05T20:25:00.000+01:00Politicamente, para nós, os EE.UU. son un país "ra...Politicamente, para nós, os EE.UU. son un país "raro", porque os seus parámetros de adcrición partidaria non son equivalentes aos nosos. Hai republicanos que son moi liberais, e hai demócratas que son moi conservadores. <BR/><BR/>Así, aínda que haxa republicanos que poidan apoiar en termos xerais a xentes como Reagan (ignoro se o fixo con Perot, que era un out-sider), despois resulta que en materia de dereitos civís son moito máis avanzados, como o propio Clint Eastwood. E hai demócratas que son moi, pero moi conservadores. En todo caso, nada que ver con Chomsky, para ben e para mal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168016315409204122007-01-05T17:58:00.000+01:002007-01-05T17:58:00.000+01:00Intesante e suxestiva a última achega, sobre todo ...Intesante e suxestiva a última achega, sobre todo para aqueles que, non considerando precisamente allea a vida social e política estadounidense (dela dependemos todos, non si?), dispomos de pouco vagar para formular as análises.<BR/><BR/>A mesma falta de tempo (ou exceso de trafego) leva á frecuente necesidade de autocorrixirse: así, Letters from Iwo Jima e Flags of our fathers son, como vostedes sen dúbida xa sabían, dúas películas, a primeira pretendidamente desde a óptica xaponesa e a segunda desde a norteamericana.<BR/><BR/>Un último apuntamento: en efecto, politicamente os USA son ben diversos de nóse certamente complexos. Eu tendía (probablemente tendo) a simpatizar bastante con moitos personaxes cinematográficas que desempeñou Heston, non precisa ou necesariamente "carcas", e cústame pensalo totalmente disociado persoalmente deles, aínda tendo en conta o talento interpretativo. Ora ben, considero que considerar a Eastwood un "liberal" seguramente resulte algo excesivo, por moi latus sensus que lle queiramos dar ao termo. Apoiou a Reagan, ao Ross Perot... máis afastado de Noam Chomsky (é un exemplo extremo, cómpre recoñecelo) non sei se será moi posible.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1168010711717499872007-01-05T16:25:00.000+01:002007-01-05T16:25:00.000+01:00Penso que non é exactamente así, señor Leituga One...Penso que non é exactamente así, señor Leituga One. A Asociación Nacional do Rifle, que presidía Heston (morreu non hai moito, non?), é un grupo de presión -a súa vez relacionado coas multinacionais armamentísticas- moi vencellado aos sectores máis radicais ("ultras") do Partido Republicano.<BR/><BR/>O que si é correcto é o resto da súa aseveración. Nos EE.UU., sobre todo no medio Oeste, foise configurando unha "cultura das armas" que arrinca desde os mesmos momentos da súa independencia. Lembremos que o dereito a "portar armas" é un dereito fundamental inscrito da propia Constitución (máis en concreto, nalgunha das súas primeiras "emendas", coido lembrar agora), o que ten unha lóxica histórica derivada do propio carácter orixinario da sociedade norteamericana e do seu avance (eufemismo!) cara o Oeste durante todo o século XIX. Esta "cultura das armas" é, certamente, transversal aos partidos políticos, polo que que tamén encontramos democrátas que defenden ese dereito, aínda que son sobre os republicanos os que máis fincapé fan, como tónica xeral.<BR/>Mais esta lóxica histórica derivou, nos tempos actuais, nunha manifesta irracionalidade xurídica e humanitaria, pois contradí o "lexítimo monopolio da violencia en mans do Estado", ademais de supor un perigo para as relacións humanas (se estás armado, máis tentado estás de usalas).<BR/>Así as cousas, é moi difícil suprimir o dereito a portar armas. Faría falta unha nova emenda constitucional que derogase a precedente, e para iso fai falta unha maioría cualificada (non sei se de 3/4 ou así) do Senado e da Cámara de Representantes. E esta non é posible porque choca contra: a) os intereses dos propios partidos (sobre todo de moitos dos seus membros que reciben xenerosas subvencións para unhas campañas electorais que son moi personalizadas); b) os grupos de presión vinculados ás empresas armamentísticas (entre elas a ANR); c) a persistencia nun significativo sector da poboación desa "cultura das armas".<BR/>En definitiva, que propoñer a supresión dese dereito non é rendable electoralmente. Téñense feito nalgúns estados algúns intentos de "limitación", nunca de "supresión".<BR/><BR/>Ben, seguro que no que acabo de dicir hai algunha imprecisión ou erro. É o que ten falar de memoria ou, teño que recoñecelo, ter unha información incompleta dunha problemática que a nós, europeos occidentais, nos repugna.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167959407192451352007-01-05T02:10:00.000+01:002007-01-05T02:10:00.000+01:00¿Un ultra Charton Heston? Estou seguro de que é mo...¿Un ultra Charton Heston? Estou seguro de que é moito máis radicalmente demócrata e apaixonado amante da liberdade que moitos votantes españois de "centro". O que pasa con Heston é que anda con iso dos rifles, cousa que a nós, dende Europa, nos parece unha cousa medio "facha". Pero nos USA a identificación entre ser un "ultra" e un defensor da libre propiedade de armas non está nada xeralizada. Por desgracia, engado.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167944705775896862007-01-04T22:05:00.000+01:002007-01-04T22:05:00.000+01:00Non sei, pero sospeito que cando Heston fixo iso q...Non sei, pero sospeito que cando Heston fixo iso que vostede indica, aínda non era o ultra que logo acabaría sendo. Pero habería que comprobalo para estar seguros.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167943354076837432007-01-04T21:42:00.000+01:002007-01-04T21:42:00.000+01:00Tamén republicano é Charlton Heston, un ultra na n...Tamén republicano é Charlton Heston, un ultra na nosa terminoloxía, pero tivo a valentía ( ou iso din) de arriscar os seus cartos para completar grandes películas de autores probablemente tan lonxanos do seu pensamento coma Sam Peckinpah e Orson Welles en Mayor Dundee e Touch of Evil, respectivamente.bouzafriahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12694463767278840722noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167936180260054732007-01-04T19:43:00.000+01:002007-01-04T19:43:00.000+01:00Eastwood era republicano cando fora alcalde da peq...Eastwood era republicano cando fora alcalde da pequena localidade de Carmel, coido. Pero, republicano ou non, nas películas dirixidas por el hai unha obvia visión liberal (no senso norteamericano do termo).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167934210830556082007-01-04T19:10:00.000+01:002007-01-04T19:10:00.000+01:00Blanco Valdés coido que é constitucionalista (esta...Blanco Valdés coido que é constitucionalista (estarei confundido, unha vez máis?); eu máis ben pensara no outro.<BR/><BR/>Concordo no outro comentario: Flags of Our Fathers: Heroes of Iwo Jima xa merece respecto por ousar tocar ese emblema dos USA. Comparala coa outra película (co mesmo tema visto desde o lado xaponés) será ben interesante exercicio.<BR/><BR/>E tamén pór en relación o resultado, en termos ideolóxicos, co presumido perfil do autor. Supoño que Eastwood segue a ser republicano, aínda que isto, máis ca etiqueta, de por si implica só remota e ao mellor non moi concreta adscrición.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167930263239688102007-01-04T18:04:00.000+01:002007-01-04T18:04:00.000+01:00Eu sospeito que o primeiro, señor Valcárcel.Clint ...Eu sospeito que o primeiro, señor Valcárcel.<BR/><BR/>Clint Eastwood é un clásico vivo dende hai moitos anos. Cando menos media dúcia das súas películas son auténticas obras mestras. Debezo por ver as dúas últimas sobre a II Guerra Mundial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23750033.post-1167926019901229362007-01-04T16:53:00.000+01:002007-01-04T16:53:00.000+01:00Unha curiosidade malévola: quen sería o ilustre po...Unha curiosidade malévola: quen sería o ilustre politólogo con columna moi lida...? X.L. Barreiro? Roberto Blanco Valdés?Marcos Valcárcel Lópezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01049968324831056411noreply@blogger.com