OldBoy

I read DVD Savant's DVD review of The Deer Hunter - Legacy Series at http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/read.php?ID=17451 and...
i think you really miss the point of this movie, Savant.

this is an american classic and those scenes that "stand still" are filled with such tension and dramatic grace that the 3 hours literally fly by. it is such a grand epic and you harp on the wedding scene?? that scene establishes who these characters are and why we lead to care so much about them and the consequences of their life actions both in Vietnam (DeNiro's russian roulette scene) and at home (DeNiro's complete and utter isolation from the world he used to cherish, feel safe, and most importantly comfortable in).

the performances are amazing as you attest to, but take another look at a cinematic master stroke. it blew me away the 15 years ago i saw it when i wasn't even a movie lover and i am sure to re-love it again with this new release.

Hammer67

WTF?

I am not saying I am the biggest fan of this film but what does this mean?

"The Deer Hunter is really an American version of a German Heimat (homeland) film, one that posits rural and conservative values as meaningful and worldly and intellectual concerns as an illusion"

I am conservative, but most definitly not "rural". Why can't my views be intellectual and meaningful?

*sigh*....liberals....

Comparing a film like the Deer Hunter to Nazi propaganda....


One thing about the film, though....doens't anyone else wonder where the hell the mountains are they were hunting in? I am from Pittsburgh and I don't remember a mountain range like that. I guess that's because they shot these scenes in the state of Washington...totally different landscape and took me right out of the film. Besides, in Western PA, you hunt White tailed dear...not what was potrayed in this film. It's in the details!!!

bdots48

To change the subject slightly, I'm sticking with the region 2 version which has a great commentary from the director. (Very reasonable priced,too)

pro-bassoonist

I can not speak about Glenn Erickson and his evaluation of this film. He will have to answer your remarks in a proper way. But....

You seem to be very ignorant in your own way!!!

For you to claim that every piece of German cinema is Nazi Propaganda is simply offensive. Care to point out to me how many German Nazi films you have seen lately?

Back on the subject of Deer Hunter....I am not the author of the review so therefore I am not qualified to defend Glenn's writings but just as you ask how come your values can not be meaningful, I would like to ask you how come Glenn's evaluation could not be reasonable? It is his personal take on the film and knowing the history of the film I would say there was plenty of controversy back in the days.

For what is worth I think that The Deer Hunter is one of te better American war films, and I think that the review in question clearly supports such an evaluation, but as every war film made in the last 25 years it is a rather controversial one.

I am looking forward to reading a further elaboration of the claim you made above.

Pro-B

Hammer67

The quote you are referring to is from the review itself (regarding the nazi comparison). I was saying the same thing as you!!! How can he compare this film to Nazi propaganda films??!! (note the puking smiley after said quote)

Read the review then my post and you will understand. You may want to do this before you start calling people "ignorant."

Though this may not be intentional comparison. Casual readers cna be confused...and, for the record, I've seen two Nazi prop. films in college studying WWII.

Hammer

p.s. Here, another quote from the review to reiterate the fact:

"It's pap, I tells ya, the kind of ur-superman stuff that Leni Riefenstahl helped preach in pro-Aryan mountain climbing movies. This doesn't want to be as provocative as it might sound, but had the Nazis conquered the world, and saw the need to make a feel-good movie about how tough it was to eradicate all those 'stubborn lower races' on other continents, it might have a few things in common with The Deer Hunter. Being an unwilling warrior who does his duty, why, what man's destiny could be greater?"

Hammer67

Who's arguing that? I agree with you about the film. Just as he has a right to his view, I have a right to disagree and take offense to a conservative viewpoint being called "rural" and implying that it isn't worldly or intellectual. I consider this a misrepresentation and I object. I don't object to the review, in general.

Regards,

Hammer

Rypro 525

i hope they fixed the audio. Since with the current non anamorphic dvd, it was quite hard to understand what characters were saying, esspecially during the russian roulette scene.
oh and i thought the wedding scene was too long. Did it really need to be the first hour??? I mean there's like 20 or 30 minutes of dancing and singing with nothing happening, almost to a point where i was tempted to hit the skip chapter button.

Hammer67

Yeah, that scene is quite long. I think the film itself could have dropped 20-30 minutes with tighter editing and been just as effective. I can't wait to drop that old DVD.

pro-bassoonist

No you are not!!

Hammer67:

I read Glenn’s review way before you even posted in this thread!

Now with this clarification out of the way here are a few things I would like to point out to you:

First of all no one is calling you “ignorant”. If anything, you make your own conclusions regarding conservatism (in whatever form you want to refer to it) after Glenn has clearly separated “rural” from “conservative”. Was it intentional or unintentional on your side to ignore the separation? Did you care to actually read the quote you have posted above and see what it claims? If the reviewer was to equate the two terms he would have written “rural conservatism” which would have put a completely different spin on his statement. Yet, the reviewer has clearly (at least to me and obviously not to you) separated the two with ”and”. A small but very important detail, don’t you think? While you partially state that you are “conservative” but not “rural” next thing you know you group the two together and switch in defensive mode. That’s where my comment came in!!

Furthermore, I hardly think that the reviewer equates the film to Nazi propaganda. He compares it to the Heimat-genre which is quite different than what you later on proceed to address. If anything, and this is directly taken from the review, I assume (you would have to discuss this with the reviewer) that the comparison made in the review implies a similar degree of bias, something that Leni Riefenstahl showcased in her films. Can you argue that the Deer Hunter is not a biased film? Like every other war film that I have seen (Platoon, Borh on the 4th of July, Heaven & Erath, etc.) The Deer Hunter offers an enormous amount of political propaganda…and what better way to expose it than to compare it to one of its master’s- Leni Riefenstahl. I don’t see this as a “Nazi comparison”, do you?

Last but not least I asked how many Nazi propaganda films you have seen lately yet you answer that you have seen two in your college years. I am going to make an intelligent guess looking at your name: Hammer 67 that you are way past your college years. Just a detail!!

I really think that there is no need for us to argue here over how the reviewer should have expressed his thoughts in the review. If anything Glenn should address your concerns. Though I had to address what seemed to me as an incorrect formulation and at least in my opinion wrongful summation of a specific quote.

Regards,
Pro-B

island007

If the intention was to separate the proper conjunction is "or".

"And" is an additive. In other words, the writer is linking the two terms together with 'and'.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference...y/search?p=and

statsmit

This thread is getting way off track and so was Glenn's review of the movie in my opinion. It was the seminal film from the 70's dealing with male friendship and the effect of the Vietnam war on this rural microcosm, like so many other towns and inherent realtionships in America at that time. As a movie, it packed a huge emotional wallop and had people talking for days after viewing it. Obviously, it has lost some of its power now nearly 30 years later. But, GE's review discounted many redeeming features of this film and if you grew up at that time exposed to the vagaries of VietNam it only seared deeper into your consciousness.

Were there contrivances in the movie? Absolutely. Most scripts are contrived to start with. Perhaps the Russian Roulette scenario was the most blatant. But again, I stress that any great movie in history (Kane, GWTW, Ben-Hur etc.) can be exposed to easy armchair criticism such as second guessing characters' motivations. To me, if you let the characters speak for themselves and allow the film to register its purpose - you can't help but be moved and impressed at the sheer power of thi film. Obviously, most critics agree it was one of the great films ever made.

Randy Miller III

You must be loads of fun at parties.

FinkPish

True, but not in this case, he's still separating the two ideas. Let's break the sentence down into its base parts.

The Deer Hunter is really an American version of a German Heimat (homeland) film, one that posits rural and conservative values as meaningful and worldly and intellectual concerns as an illusion.

To me, this sentence is saying "The Deer Hunter is similar to a film that posits rural and conservative values as meaningful." It is also saying "The Deer Hunter is similar to a film that posits world and intellectual concerns as an illusion." These are two separate ideas, that Hammer67 seems to have confounded into one.

island007

Exactly, I read the sentence the same way as you and Hammer67. The writer is linking the two terms together with 'and'. The two terms in question are conservative AND rural.


From pro-bassoonist's post:
First of all no one is calling you “ignorant”. If anything, you make your own conclusions regarding conservatism (in whatever form you want to refer to it) after Glenn has clearly separated “rural” from “conservative”. Was it intentional or unintentional on your side to ignore the separation? Did you care to actually read the quote you have posted above and see what it claims? If the reviewer was to equate the two terms he would have written “rural conservatism” which would have put a completely different spin on his statement. Yet, the reviewer has clearly (at least to me and obviously not to you) separated the two with ”and”. A small but very important detail, don’t you think? While you partially state that you are “conservative” but not “rural” next thing you know you group the two together and switch in defensive mode. That’s where my comment came in!!
End portion of pro-bassoonist's post


Also, I would add that I'm about as much fun at a party as most dvdtalk reviewers.

tonyc3742

Because, goshdarnit, everyone knows 'rural' and 'conservative' values are meaningless. That's the implication that is, well, tacky at best, insulting and inflammatory at worst.

And while I haven't read the whole article, I am skimming it now and will read in more detail; what purpose do the "pro-Aryan" and Nazi references serve? They seem to be something of a nonsequitur, with the exception of being loaded terms [I would wager/hope that to 98%+ of the visitors of this site, 'Nazi' and 'proAryan' have negative connotation], and the use of these 'comparisons' in a review seem to be cheap insulting shots.

Randy Miller III

Hammer67

Interesting take...as this next line is from your first post:

It was NOT clear as "and" does not seperate. But, whatever, okay.

"The Deer Hunter is really an American version of a German Heimat (homeland) film, one that posits rural and conservative values as meaningful and worldly and intellectual concerns as an illusion."

Okay, maybe I did read too much into this quote but he does seem to imply that "conservative and rural" values are not "worldly and intellectual."

That's what it says. That's what I take it to mean. Again, I said it may not be the intent of the reviewer but is easily interpreted that way.

Who cares when I saw a WWII propaganda film? What does it matter? I wouldn't saythat I am WAY past my college years, though.

Hey man, a review is an opinion. So are my comments on the review. And, message boards exist for discussion and sometimes disagreement of opinions, no? Otherwise they would be rather boring. Besides, I still feel my formulation and summation was correct in regards to what was written in the review.

Again, poor choice of wording, in my opinion. I took more offense to the comment addressed above more then the "Nazi" mention. You are right in the fact that most war films try to convey some type of message (any film..for that matter).

Regards,

Hammer

pro-bassoonist

Hammer67:

I wasn’t going to continue this discussion with you due to the fact that the main reason we have it-the reviewer-is obviously not engaged in it. Therefore, it makes it very difficult for me to defend his writings or, disprove them for that matter. However, you seem to be actively ignoring what I attempt to point out to you, or simply wish to make a statement of some sort. I am unsure.

Allow me to clarify a few aspects of this discussion as I don’t believe we are on the same page.

First of all no one is denying your right to comment on the article in question. On the contrary; I think that your comments certainly bring much needed attention to what I would describe as a thought-provoking review. However you seem to be twisting the quote from your initial post in a very unusual way. I did point out that you failed to recognize the subtlety of Glenn’s comment. There is clearly a separation between the two terms used in the quote: “rural” and “conservative”. You seem to ignore the fact!! In a grammatical sense what Island007 points out is correct: a clear definition would have necessitated the addition of “Or”. However, that is only the case if you took the single sentence out of context (read: out of the quote you have addressed).

Therefore you certainly ignored the distinction made by the reviewer, which naturally leads me to believe that 1) you did so intentionally (and you added your….”sigh”…liberals” remark on purpose) 2)you did so unintentionally and you still do not see what the difference is. And this is all that I am attempting to clarify for you. No one is calling you ignorant per se, but you did fail to recognize the two terms and what they add up to the reviewer’s claim[s].

You have to read the article in its entirety to explicitly understand what the reviewer is arguing about. Let’s be very specific here as obviously we need to be: the denotation of “rural” and “conservative” within the same context with German Heimat-films has a very particular meaning. One that certainly does not draw a parallel between the Deer Hunter and the Nazi ideology which some readers might wrongfully relate. The Heimat reference implies bias, plain and simple!!

Now, place this specific paragraph within the entire section that uses the “Nazi” word…and we go back to what I already stated in my previous post-the article addresses the degree of bias the Deer Hunter presents and how the subject was treated by the director. Is it really so difficult to understand it? (

Furthermore, the intent of the reviewer (which I still feel very uncomfortable reconstructing) is anything but easily interpreted as you want us to believe. If it was, this thread would not have existed as I see more than one opinion on the subject, do you agree? With this said you clearly assume that the reviewer is a liberal and if anything your comment “sigh”…is very suggestive as well (easily interpreted?).

The last paragraph of your post I won’t even address as no one is arguing whether or not you have the right to address the review. But you did go the extra mile to formulate your own conclusion as to what the reviewer wanted to say…to which just as you did I replied. After all I am no different than you-a member expressing an opinion.

Last but not least the reason I highlighted your answer to me regarding your Nazi-propaganda viewing experience is: you once again seem to omit the little details, which in this particular case was the fact that I narrowed it down to lately. You answered-in my school years. It just shows to me that you might have a tendency to ignore tiny details.


Once again, let’s just stop here. I see no reason why we should continue this discussion. It is leading nowhere.


Regards,
Pro-B

dealer

Up next, the exciting conclusion to the DVDTalk Deer Hunter Semantics Battle...

Adam Tyner

...and on that note...