Why 'Pearl Harbor' was a dud
C.D. SIX
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
Not the home of the Pacific fleet and the attack that sparked America's entrance into World War II, but rather the movie of the same name that was meant to be the latest WWII-era blockbuster film.
It had all the ingredients - top-notch special effects, a (relatively) big-name cast, and a heckuva lot of hype - yet it failed to live up to its promise and is currently dying a slow, painful death in the theaters.
Many claim the failure was political. A Washington Post article went so far as to say it didn't work because it straddled the fence, upsetting both liberals and conservatives.
An interesting analysis worthy of my best, drawing ideological subtext out of an everyday occurrence, but in this case I don't feel the film failed because it didn't fit a political agenda.
Sadly, the film failed because it was a bad film.
At this point, if you haven't seen the film, it might be best if you to go to another page. I plan to take apart pieces of the film and most assuredly will spoil the surprise if you are waiting for it at a second-run theater or on video.
"Pearl Harbor" suffered from three basic flaws: a bad (and sometimes inaccurate) plot, shallow characterizations and a lack of direction. Unfortunately, the hope that dazzling special effects would gloss over these imperfections was misguided.
The plot lacked honesty. While many historical facts gave it a point of reference, what was printed to film reminded us that you can't take a two-hour event and make a good three-hour film. Too much time was spent on the pre- and post-attack story, to a point where a more accurate title for the film might have been "America Enters the War" or some such nonsense.
By framing the film with the attack, as the name would suggest, it raised expectations as to what we would see. That expectation, something along the lines of "Tora! Tora! Tora!," was not the end result. Neither does the plot present a satisfying look at the pre- and post-attack military life. For a far better version, one could watch "From Here to Eternity" and "In Harm's Way" on home video.
Just as the plot was lacking, the characters were deficient. It is rare that I can go to a film and not find one redeeming characteristic in any of a film's characters, yet in "Pearl Harbor," not only were the characters shallow, many felt as if they were lifted from successful films.
The male and female leads - Kate Beckinsale, Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck - do their jobs. Beckinsale is easy on the eyes and Affleck and Hartnett are, at least, male. Unfortunately, the story has to rely on their less than ample talent to overcome their less than ample roles. Beckinsale's nurse falls haplessly in love with one, then the other, of our male heroes. First love Affleck does his usual mumbling and pensive look routine, this time with a southern accent, before enlisting in the RAF and disappearing. Hartnett, the best friend, steps in and inadvertently woos Beckinsale after the standard three-month waiting period.
Despite the hype that bills Hartnett as the next male heart-throb, it is difficult to believe that he could woo a camel, let alone the pretty nurse. The lad just doesn't have that Leo DiCaprio quality. Worry not, Affleck returns from the missing and presumed dead to spoil the party, and ultimately to be the father of Hartnett and Benkinsale's child in the post-WWII sunset, providing us with a "don't be morally responsible, just do what feels good" lesson.
In the supporting cast, a gaggle of nurses lifted straight from the script of "A League of Their Own", right down to the Rosie-like character and her sexually-liberated Madonna pal, provide a little comic relief. Indeed, all of "Pearl Harbor's" female characters were easy, vain and decadent, a fact that was pointed out to me by several women who saw the film. All in all, rather disheartening when you consider that many girls will look to these characters as women to emulate.
Cuba Gooding Jr.'s talent is wasted on a stereotypical black hero in two or three scenes. Nevertheless, he creates one of the few interesting characters you hope don't get killed in the process. Jon Voight plays the perky, patriotic, polio-stricken president.
A bombastic Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Doolittle is even harder to take. Watching him evokes memories of his broken promise to leave the country in the wake of a Bush election. Listening to his rant about how if shot down he would direct his plane at the nearest "military target" (an overly repeated phrase) in his best attempt to fill the John Wayne role of the film brings to mind Shakespeare's poor player who struts and frets upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Finally, the Japanese are perhaps the best treated characters of the film. The Japanese people are not painted as vicious monsters, grinning as they gun down American servicemen, but rather come off honorable and properly motivated by the oil embargo. They are, however, misportrayed as viewing the attack as a victory. History buffs know that Japanese commander Admiral Yamamoto saw the attack as a failure, both for the lack of U.S. aircraft carriers stationed at the base Dec. 7 and for waking the "sleeping giant."
The lack of direction in character development, romance, or that fateful day is evident as the film meanders aimlessly from the late 1930s to the Battle of Britain to the attack to Doolittle's raiders. It never seemed to settle on what story to tell - if it were a history or a romance - and if it were a history, what the specific history lesson was.
Most likely, it was hoped that special effects would help the audience overcome these shortcomings, and while admittedly dazzling, they were not of a quality that has not been done before. Neither were they realistic. The film's dogfighting planes did not display the physics of their real-life counterparts, but rather that of a well-designed game for the Nintendo or Playstation.
In the end, "Pearl Harbor" failed to be an Oscar-quality film or box-office blockbuster because it fell short of every mark. In the hero department, it provided none. Romance was sacrificed for sex. It provided little character development. Its special effects, while good, were nothing new. Its history was questionable.
"Pearl Harbor" was a victim of its own mediocrity.
C.D. Six is The Mercury's Graphics Editor. E-mail him at [email protected]
C.D. SIX
Wednesday, July 18, 2001
Not the home of the Pacific fleet and the attack that sparked America's entrance into World War II, but rather the movie of the same name that was meant to be the latest WWII-era blockbuster film.
It had all the ingredients - top-notch special effects, a (relatively) big-name cast, and a heckuva lot of hype - yet it failed to live up to its promise and is currently dying a slow, painful death in the theaters.
Many claim the failure was political. A Washington Post article went so far as to say it didn't work because it straddled the fence, upsetting both liberals and conservatives.
An interesting analysis worthy of my best, drawing ideological subtext out of an everyday occurrence, but in this case I don't feel the film failed because it didn't fit a political agenda.
Sadly, the film failed because it was a bad film.
At this point, if you haven't seen the film, it might be best if you to go to another page. I plan to take apart pieces of the film and most assuredly will spoil the surprise if you are waiting for it at a second-run theater or on video.
"Pearl Harbor" suffered from three basic flaws: a bad (and sometimes inaccurate) plot, shallow characterizations and a lack of direction. Unfortunately, the hope that dazzling special effects would gloss over these imperfections was misguided.
The plot lacked honesty. While many historical facts gave it a point of reference, what was printed to film reminded us that you can't take a two-hour event and make a good three-hour film. Too much time was spent on the pre- and post-attack story, to a point where a more accurate title for the film might have been "America Enters the War" or some such nonsense.
By framing the film with the attack, as the name would suggest, it raised expectations as to what we would see. That expectation, something along the lines of "Tora! Tora! Tora!," was not the end result. Neither does the plot present a satisfying look at the pre- and post-attack military life. For a far better version, one could watch "From Here to Eternity" and "In Harm's Way" on home video.
Just as the plot was lacking, the characters were deficient. It is rare that I can go to a film and not find one redeeming characteristic in any of a film's characters, yet in "Pearl Harbor," not only were the characters shallow, many felt as if they were lifted from successful films.
The male and female leads - Kate Beckinsale, Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck - do their jobs. Beckinsale is easy on the eyes and Affleck and Hartnett are, at least, male. Unfortunately, the story has to rely on their less than ample talent to overcome their less than ample roles. Beckinsale's nurse falls haplessly in love with one, then the other, of our male heroes. First love Affleck does his usual mumbling and pensive look routine, this time with a southern accent, before enlisting in the RAF and disappearing. Hartnett, the best friend, steps in and inadvertently woos Beckinsale after the standard three-month waiting period.
Despite the hype that bills Hartnett as the next male heart-throb, it is difficult to believe that he could woo a camel, let alone the pretty nurse. The lad just doesn't have that Leo DiCaprio quality. Worry not, Affleck returns from the missing and presumed dead to spoil the party, and ultimately to be the father of Hartnett and Benkinsale's child in the post-WWII sunset, providing us with a "don't be morally responsible, just do what feels good" lesson.
In the supporting cast, a gaggle of nurses lifted straight from the script of "A League of Their Own", right down to the Rosie-like character and her sexually-liberated Madonna pal, provide a little comic relief. Indeed, all of "Pearl Harbor's" female characters were easy, vain and decadent, a fact that was pointed out to me by several women who saw the film. All in all, rather disheartening when you consider that many girls will look to these characters as women to emulate.
Cuba Gooding Jr.'s talent is wasted on a stereotypical black hero in two or three scenes. Nevertheless, he creates one of the few interesting characters you hope don't get killed in the process. Jon Voight plays the perky, patriotic, polio-stricken president.
A bombastic Alec Baldwin as Jimmy Doolittle is even harder to take. Watching him evokes memories of his broken promise to leave the country in the wake of a Bush election. Listening to his rant about how if shot down he would direct his plane at the nearest "military target" (an overly repeated phrase) in his best attempt to fill the John Wayne role of the film brings to mind Shakespeare's poor player who struts and frets upon the stage, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
Finally, the Japanese are perhaps the best treated characters of the film. The Japanese people are not painted as vicious monsters, grinning as they gun down American servicemen, but rather come off honorable and properly motivated by the oil embargo. They are, however, misportrayed as viewing the attack as a victory. History buffs know that Japanese commander Admiral Yamamoto saw the attack as a failure, both for the lack of U.S. aircraft carriers stationed at the base Dec. 7 and for waking the "sleeping giant."
The lack of direction in character development, romance, or that fateful day is evident as the film meanders aimlessly from the late 1930s to the Battle of Britain to the attack to Doolittle's raiders. It never seemed to settle on what story to tell - if it were a history or a romance - and if it were a history, what the specific history lesson was.
Most likely, it was hoped that special effects would help the audience overcome these shortcomings, and while admittedly dazzling, they were not of a quality that has not been done before. Neither were they realistic. The film's dogfighting planes did not display the physics of their real-life counterparts, but rather that of a well-designed game for the Nintendo or Playstation.
In the end, "Pearl Harbor" failed to be an Oscar-quality film or box-office blockbuster because it fell short of every mark. In the hero department, it provided none. Romance was sacrificed for sex. It provided little character development. Its special effects, while good, were nothing new. Its history was questionable.
"Pearl Harbor" was a victim of its own mediocrity.
C.D. Six is The Mercury's Graphics Editor. E-mail him at [email protected]