Full Metal Jacket and the limitations of Kubrick

Started by Gold Trumpet, January 27, 2003, 10:59:18 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Gold Trumpet

Thank you JB in correcting me on some statements of accuracy. After posting, I was second guessing myself on if it was nuc war heads or actually some other weapons found. But I still debate that, yes, Iraq is making more progressing in being forthcoming because of some weapons being found and the idea of war closer than ever, but how much can UN pressure really accomplish? I think the UN pressure is mainly succeeding at the moment only due to the likelihood of an incoming war happening. When war was not really of thinking to definitely going to happen, Iraq was same old Iraq. Also, even if the pressure continues against Iraq, is it a gurantee that all illegal weapons will be confiscated and we will even know that they were? My point is that even though ground may be gained, there is still a thing where trust has to be put upon Iraq in knowing all what they say is actually the truth. Also, is the government of Hussein to remain even though he clearly violated mandates set up by the UN and United States through out the 90s that was the only reason he exists now? Isn't it still best within the context of the mandates he violated for him to be removed as the mandates have said. And for this very situation, "No justice, no peace" is not oversimplification at all. The thing is, with the Hussein government, you have Hussein in there and then his son coming to power, who Hussein is to have said is even crazier than him. I think the UN needs to accept the fact that this government has violated its own mandates and remove him according to those violations.

~rougerum

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetMy point is that even though ground may be gained, there is still a thing where trust has to be put upon Iraq in knowing all what they say is actually the truth

Sometimes you have to give up on expecting the complete truth from dictators. So what is it, tell me the truth or die? No wonder Europeans see Americans as "uncivilized cowboys."

Quote from: The Gold TrumpetAlso, is the government of Hussein to remain even though he clearly violated mandates set up by the UN

Do you see the irony in us defying the UN in order to punish Iraq for defying the UN?

Quote from: The Gold Trumpetremoved as the mandates have said

I don't remember any UN resolution mandating or threatening the removal of Saddam. Resolution 1441 said that he should be disarmed, but set no timeline or consequences. In fact, several European nations asked Bush to promise that the language in 1441 would not trigger the threat of war, which Bush promised (so they would sign on) only to say the opposite a few days after it passed.

In the opening statement of his press conference, just a few hours ago, Bush said Saddam "provides funding, training, and safe haven for terrorists" (none of which he has credible evidence for, most of which he hasn't even tried to prove). He reminded us that September 11 could happen again as a direct result of Saddam staying in power, and repeatedly used the phrases "the dictator" and "weapons of terror." His response to the peace protestors? "I realize there are people who don't like war."

Not only is there a direct strategy of creating fear, and a disgusting amount of misinformation and speculation as fact, but isn't there an obvious pattern of double standards? We threaten to make the UN irrelevant if it does not agree with us, and say that its support is important, but that we won't take no for an answer. We say that the North Korea situation should be solved diplomaticly, yet refuse to talk with North Korea.

My biggest worry right now is the North Korea war, because I think the Iraq war is inevitable (within the next 2 weeks, definitely). We're going to say, "Look how much time we've already given North Korea. We've been patient with their hostilities long enough."

Duck Sauce

JB, what should the US do short of converting to communism?

Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: Duck SauceJB, what should the US do short of converting to communism?

I know I'm not supposed to take that seriously, but to paraphrase budgie, that is sooo lazy. First of all, Marxism, socialism, and communism are all different things, and when you say "communist" you evoke memories of Stalin, Castro, Kim Jong Il.. all essentially fascists. And what does communism have to do with war aggression anyway?

If you really want me to answer your question (I'm reluctant, cause this is straying from the war issue), I don't think we should be communist (which I don't think can work on a large scale anyway), but we should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.

Duck Sauce

Yeah, I was just kidding around with the communism stuff, but I honestly would like to hear what you think should be done about the war issue, what should be done with Hussein.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman
I don't think can work on a large scale anyway), but we should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.

Why should we do this?

av8raaron

Quote from: Jeremy Blackmanwe should be more like a socialist democracy. Take Canada as an example, take much of Scandinavia.

That is absurd to the point of being offensive, not to mention contrary to the freedoms that people have fought and died for that set America apart.
Fresh buttered toast.

Gold Trumpet

Your first comments makes no sense in what you want diplomacy to accomplish. If diplomacy was to work, it would work in bringing out all the illegal weapons that it is suppose to do. Much of the world against war, do look to Saddam as being a tyrant and that diplomacy (weapons inspectors, UN pressure) will do the job of removing the illegal weapons that US claims war only can do. But I am at fault with that reasoning since it is trying to bargain with a government on the mind set of one near Nazi Germany. It's a no win situation, and I do not believe it will do the job. The fact that Iraq has weapons and scientist with the freedom to work on them for purposes unkown is most at question here. You don't even seem to be really arguing that point at all even.

Well, it is something set by Iraq, but was also something co signed by USA because they dealt with the war specifically. It may be ironic, but that's not the important argument. The important argument comes down to bringing down those laws. Your responce gets down more to the muddle of the UN vs. USA in general than anything else.

The mandates was a signed agreement by UN-Iraq-USA in what Iraq had to do for its government to keep power and not be removed by US agression in the Gulf War being fully realized in some generals of USA getting what they want, with the Iraqi government being removed but had to settle woth an agreement, that included that through out the 90s, weapons inspectors by the UN would be given full access to investigate Iraq for pocessing any illegal weapons. Iraq, on the other hand, did not comply and threw out the inspectors on many occasions. The US government, with Clinton as president and unwilling to committ to any big agression towards Iraq, only did a few small bombings on isolated areas of Iraq. Bush wasn't willing to committ either on anything war either when first entering, but post september 11th, has.

I don't care what Bush says even if it being politicized because even with this war, there is still reason. Bush's words are for public appeal in the aftermath of September 11th. If Bush did not have Iraq violating weapons inspections that was the only thing keeping him in, then I would be of a different opinion.

UN has been irrevelant for the US for its entire history. US basically created the UN. FDR gave it its name. US campaigned hard to get 2/3 of its headquaters by funding 85% of all its activities, which US still does to this day, but with a big debt piling up, wants less responsibilties financial wise with US. Even the current leader of the UN, Kofi Anan (misspelling?), is in power today mainly because of USA, who found major disagreements with the last, who was more radical and against the US. So US campaigned hard and got him removed.

I do agree the North Korea is a much more dangerous situation that needs a lot of diplomacy to it because the enemy is a greater risk. I don't think USA will treat that situation at all like this. Or, well, I hope it doesn't.

~rougerum

Pubrick

under the paving stones.


Gold Trumpet

Iraq is on the title of that thread, but it really doesn't talk about it.

~rougerum

Him

i was listening to this breakfast show on the radio this morning (xfm 104.9 in the uk, if you must know) and they had this political song-writer who was supporting paul weller on his tour this evening. he had an audience with this high up politician who was making an impassioned speech about how much they believed in the need to take action against iraq, to the point where they would go in without the backing of the u.n.

"how about without the backing of the u.s.?"












(that was the sound of silence.)

SiliasRuby

I just love when they are singing the Micket Mouse Theme song. Also, the early 60's rock and roll is just classic in this film.
The Beatles know Jesus Christ has returned to Earth and is in Los Angeles.

When you are getting fucked by the big corporations remember to use a condom.

There was a FISH in the perkalater!!!

My Collection

cowboykurtis

for those eyes who haven't read:

Kubrick Takes His Time

      3/29/98
      The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Director Stanley Kubrick has a reputation for beaucoup takes and
overlong shooting. He kept Nicole Kidman and Tom Cruise for more
than a year working on "Eyes Wide Shut" in England.

Vincent D'Onofrio, who's starring as one of "The Newton Boys" and
did "Full Metal Jacket" with Kubrick, knows full well what they went
through: "I remember over a year ago I was flying in a plane and
there  was an article in the airline magazine about Nicole Kidman and
how she'd  gotten a house for six months in England. And the first
thing that came  to mind was, `She'd better get a longer lease.' "

D'Onofrio was there for 13 months shooting "Full Metal Jacket"
and appeared in less than 40 minutes. Matthew Modine, the star,  was
there a year and a half.

Still, D'Onofrio says he'd love to work for Kubrick again.
"I'd play a waiter for him. He's one of the only guys left that
you can say `he's a genius' and you're not b.s.-ing. He's a
filmmaker.  There are not a lot of them that exist."

D'Onofrio says he thinks it takes Kubrick so long because there
are days when he just can't work creatively.

"If Stanley Kubrick wants to take a year and a half to make a film
and if one day he wakes up and doesn't know what to do, doesn't know
how to shoot the scene, doesn't want to go to work because he
doesn't  want to fail, then he doesn't. What I saw was that. I saw
him confused  at times and not wanting to do something if it wasn't
going to work."
 
 
...your excuses are your own...

ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ

I may be crazy, but didn't D'Onofrio give Kubrick shit because he felt he was typecast after FMJ?
"As a matter of fact I only work with the feeling of something magical, something seemingly significant. And to keep it magical I don't want to know the story involved, I just want the hypnotic effect of it somehow seeming significant without knowing why." - Len Lye

cowboykurtis

in the newest issue of GIANT MAGAZINE (with Mischa Barton on cover) there is a huge and fantastic spread on Mathew Modines Full Metal Jacket diary - lots of great photos.
...your excuses are your own...