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 than it does with Oliver Stone. "In America, they assumed I was trying to make an Oliver Stone movie and that I'd failed."
---------------------

Due to the response I've seen from peers about it, I agree with him. I felt it was a great off-beat war film. Another example of Sam Mendes' talent.

I haven't seen it yet, but I really want to. Without having seen the film, I can already say that I agree with him, because every person I know who didn't like it responded with something along the lines of, "There was too much talking," or "You only see one guy die in the entire thing!"

I personally love the movie and think it's one of the best of the year. I don't know whether it's because I'm European or what, but I enjoyed it immensely.

Anti-American scum.

Since it is not very long, I am copy/pasting my review:


-------------------------------------------------------
Jarhead
I am becoming a great fan of Sam Mendes. All the three movies he has made are excellent, especially this one and American Beauty. This is a sort of tribute to great war movies like Apocalypse Now (It even has a scene from that movie). There are a lot of funny scenes, but they end in a shocking manner. This technique is employed throughout the movie to grab the attention of the viewer repeatedly. And along the lines of Apocalypse Now, this movie is about madness associated with war and not about war itself. A great movie. Don't miss it.
------------------------------------------------------


I am glad he made this movie, no matter who hated it.
SPOILER ALERT
The camel scene and firing in the air at the end are great scenes. Very high quality of film-making.

Mr. Mendes is halfway correct.

The reason why American audiences didn't see it was because they expected an all violent war film with constant action and all that garbage. What they receieved was a thought provoking film that most couldn't handle.

Why most of the American critics didn't get it was because in a year of "Good Night and Good Luck" and a year after "Fahrenheit 9/11", the critics here seem to be under the impression that if you make a thought provoking film, you need to at least once critize Bush and the current state of the country.

Because the film dealt more with the psychological war than the fighting or the politics, critics and audiences felt cheated, though for no good reason. It's one of the most misunderstood films of the year.

I don't think that's necessarly true. This film doesn't set out to be anything except just an acctually depiction of men preparing for war. It's not really that raical at all.

You are right. THe American people demand blood and guts in their war movies and Hollywood is only to kind to submit.

Mike, what I said (or meant to say) was that it didn't set out to anything more than an actual depiction, but critics felt it should have been more politically motivated, which it wasn't, and it didn't need to be.

I haven't seen it yet so I couldn't say whether a Canadian would get Jarhead or not. It's probably worth renting when the dvd comes out though.

I went into it hoping for a deep psychological study of the main character, not a typical American made action movie, and I was still dissappointed. I personally thought Mendes couldve made a much more thought-provoking and interesting film with the source matierial, although I havent read the book, the story seems to have potential.

Mike, what I said (or meant to say) was that it didn't set out to anything more than an actual depiction, but critics felt it should have been more politically motivated, which it wasn't, and it didn't need to be. [/b][/quote]That makes sense. Sorry for jumping on you a bit.

Ya, I do understand where Mendes is coming from. While its been unfortunately ignored, its in my Top 10 list for 2005.

BTW - Yes, I'm back. Get the drinks out.

USC by 3? :rolleyes:

So I was only half-right, big deal. :p

"I thought you were Pre-Med?"
"Same thing"

I'm not sure if I can quite grasp the idea of this movie. How does it differ from American war movies? What are some signs?

Possible spoilers
Well, it's the first I've seen that's about the boredom of war. The platoon consists of men who had nothing great to live for in America, so they joined the war to either do something worthwhile or kill. Between the training gone to waste and the bombers clearing up the land before they go through it, it's really about mental exhaustion and annoyance. It's humor mixed with it provides a very off-beat war film.
Possible spoilers