Wednesday, January 04, 2006

Due To Grievous Misunderstanding, U.N. Spacy Failed To Recognize The Now HERCULEAN Failure Achieved By 'Jarhead'

WENN/IMDb News reports:
Oscar-winning film director Sam Mendes claims American viewers don't understand his new movie Jarhead as well as Europeans - because they expect war films to be one-sided. The movie based on the novel Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford, and focuses on the frivolousness of war, rather than the glory - something Mendes feels Americans don't grasp. Mendes says, "I feel they've understood in Europe. In America, it's like talking about a different movie. "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies, and not just the political laws of American movies right now which demand on some level to tell us which side they're on. "In Europe, there's a sense this film comes from the tradition of absurdist war movies about the futility of conflict. "It has more in common with Beckett, Sartre and Banuel [ed. note - um, sic] than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."
First, tsk-tsk to WENN/IMDb for quotation-marking drunk again.

But getting to my point, back in November this site lambasted Jarhead for being calculated, one-dimensional, and a particularly poor example of the type of war films often associated with, among others, Oliver Stone. It's not in my nature to be smug, but Armond White says that's how I roll, so here goes. U.N. Spacy doesn't actually believe that we misunderstood anything about the film, but admittedly, we are an American-based blog (it's where the SDF-1's parked, anyway). Now that Mendes has drawn the line in the sand, our lack of continental noblesse forces us to concede underestimation of his opus. We now understand that it's actually a farcically atrocious flubbing of an attempt to vaunt Mendes into the arena of Beckett, Sartre, and this mysterious Banuel character. Not merely mean-spirited, badly written, and misdirected, it turns out that Jarhead is in fact an arrogant, bloated grab at high-intellect elitism that falls so dismally short of its reach that no one has been able to see it for anything other than deafeningly cautionary Academy-bait (or -bate, depending on your level of condescension) on how soldiers have a hard-on for killing Iraqis.

But I'm not done just yet. See, way back in the last goddamned century I repeatedly accused Sam Mendes of making a schlocky, obvious date movie designed for audiences to exit the cineplexes reminded of their own perceptive recognition of the many ways other people live their lives so woefully wrong. Legions of self-proclaimed serious moviegoers attributed to Mendes a peeling back of the smog of suburban denial obscuring the unrecognized plight of fin de siecle America, and an eye for storytelling that recalled Kurosawa's better work. Many listened to my lengthy, spittle-harvesting rants to the contrary but, with few exceptions, none of you little bitches actually took me seriously. Today I gloatingly confront you with, "Fundamentally, Jarhead disobeys all the laws of American movies." J.V. cinefiles, this odious monster is the fruit of your consensus-blinded loins. I am a wrathful blogger, and I will not save you.


Blogger James Reesor said...

My sense of urgency about every moment of time from this day through 2007 can be summed up in one word: JIGROP!

Every person on our planet needs to be challenged with this message: Jesus is God -- repent or perish!

If Christians in all nations will humble themselves enough to "advertise" this vital message in public places, it might be possible to redirect the focus of Christian --"religious" -- leaders away from activities that have nothing to do with drawing lost souls to Christ.

We need to offer a person-to-person approach to witnessing that encourages Christians of all ages and backgrounds to get involved. Will you volunteer to wear a "JIGROP" shirt or cap? Will you quote "John 3:16" when strangers ask: "What does JIGROP mean?

If you are a sincere Christian, please think about sharing this idea with your friends. I challenge you to make and experiment with a few shirts or caps in your community to see what kind of reaction you get when visiting restaurants or the mall.

Go to this site for more ideas:

(Supernatural things will happen if you do God's will.)

Send your letter with comments or questions to:

P.O. Box 218197
Nashville, TN 37221

12:46 PM  
Blogger Jack McKinney said...

"Supernatural things"? Like will a ghost watch me shower or something?

12:56 PM  
Blogger Aaron Burkhalter said...


Your hatred is as seething as it is influential on my decision to not see Jarhead. After reading your comments, and remembering back to Road To Perdition I went "Oh yeah, Mendes SUCKS!"

I find his movies frustrating... I'm not particularly film savvy, but Mendes is lumped with Spielburg in my head: overbloated and appreciated for being merely risque. Making a movie about a controversial subject sadly does not make a good movie.

anyway, thanks for the lack of recommendation.

12:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"We now understand that it's actually a farcically otrocious flubbing of an attempt to vaunt Mendes into the arena of Beckett, Sartre, and this mysterious Banuel character."

If you're gonna mock his spelling of "Bunuel", you could perhaps spell "atrocious" correctly. You could also try to find out whether it is actually possible to "attempt to vaunt [someone] into the arena".

As for "perceptive recognition" and other meaningless bullshit spewed here, I say to you: um.

I haven't seen Jarhead. If it is indeed bad enough to cause you to become enraged, then I may sympathize.

3:15 PM  
Blogger Jack McKinney said...

Appreciate the heads-up on "otrocious." My spellcheck habits are indeed just that. But I'm sticking by the use of the word "vaunt" until someone convinces me of its improper use.

Anyway, we're just happy to be read....

3:26 PM  
Anonymous pobrecito said...

Wow Sam Mendes is a dick! He and Oliver "Alexander was hated by Americans because they're homophobic" Stone can get together and start some sort of suport group for "misunderstood by America" filmmakers.

Who's the next director to come forward with this allegation going to be?
Uwe Boll? "Bloodrayne has more to do with Russian ballet and Chihuly glass sculpture than Americans are used to seeing in their video game to movie adaptations! They get it Germany!"

Frankly I'm sick of the whole notion of "euro-superiority" when it comes to film. Have you seen the domestic shit that is popular in Europe?! It's as bad if not worse than American pop-cinema.

And lastly, as far as I know, Buñuel rarely, if ever, commented on war as he was too busy attacking the Catholic Church, the upper middle class, and pretty much the whole idea of assigning meaning to a chaotic world. I have yet to see Jarhead, but I doubt there is anything comparable in it. To Mr. Mendes, j'accuse "name-droppa!"
thanks for this

11:41 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog is much better when it sticks to content only as political as the feud between LiLo and Hill. Let's can the overly rampant film critique, shall we?

1:01 PM  
Blogger George said...

Main Entry: 1vaunt
Pronunciation: 'vont, 'vänt
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French vanter, from Late Latin vanitare, frequentative of (assumed) Latin vanare, from Latin vanus vain
intransitive senses : to make a vain display of one's own worth or attainments : BRAG
transitive senses : to call attention to pridefully and often boastfully (people who vaunt their ingenuity)
synonym see BOAST

I wish y'all wouldn't 911 me with this stuff. I was showering with a ghost.

1:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home