quote:
And how is what I said anti-intellectual? I have no issue with intellectuals, intellectual behavior, or intellect. Hell, I am an intellectual, though I don't throw around words such as "effete" - which is at least a $5 word - on a message board like a strutting peacock. By the way, "haliography" doesn't make a damn bit of sense as used in this context, but I digress.

It is an inherently anti-intellectual argument to insult the other person for using big words. Particularly when the words you pointed out weren't very big. But whatever. That's neither here nor there. I think it's an anti-intellectual film, but that doesn't make Spielberg inherently anti-intellectual. I used "effete" because the word fit, by the way. Sorry you have a problem with it. I talk the way I talk (or type the way I type).

And I think it is a haliography. I don't think the film has any purpose for existing other than to say how great the WWI generation is. It is the film's raison d'etre. I don't even think any person involved would deny that is the purpose of the film. Not only does the term haliography fit, I'd say this is the most haliographic film possible. It is all about proclaiming the greatness of the "Band of Brothers".

quote:
In the context of the film, Hanks is an intellectual. The role of teacher classically is one of an intellectual. Moreover, Hanks' character is routinely engaged in his own thoughts, has affinity for the spoken and written word, and has a superb mind. As for the fact that the others didn't know he was college educated or a teacher, that is of little to no consequence to him being an intellectual. The fact that his behavior is that of an intellectual, that he does read the classics, that he can go toe-to-toe with Opum is enough to show that he is an intellectual. The fact that he hid his intellect from his group highlights exactly what you are driving at: that the general notion of the intellectual is of a weak-kneed, effete arse who couldn't hold a rifle let alone shoot it straight. But Hanks' character CAN do that and after Opum sees the grit of war, so can he. The fact that Opum is a wuss throughout most of the film highlights his dramatic change as a result of the war and shows, again, that the stereotype of the weak intellectual is misplaced.

I think that's a very generous reading of Opum's character that is not really in the text of the film. I think his character is thoroughly repudiated as being wrong in all of his beliefs. He is not the moral center, he is a weakling and it is only when he rejects his prior beliefs is when he can become one of the boys. And its not like murdering a guy who was surrendering was a brave act, but let's not delve into that. He's a weak character you're meant to dislike.

quote:
As for why I said Spielberg didn't write the film, you mentioned that this film highlighted Spielberg's self-pity and how it "talk[ed] about what a loser and a coward he is." The fact that he didn't write the film is certainly evidence against this notion.

In any case, you seem to be more interested in winning your argument by beating me, or anyone who disagrees with you, over the head with stilted language rather than precise argument. No matter how you slice it, your argument has flaws.

Spielberg is the director and is thus the "author" of the film. He's responsible for the tone and pretty much the entire final product. So yes, it is his attitudes which matter. But you can use the artful dodge of saying someone else wrote it, but the criticism that it is the Boomer generation wallowing in self-pity for rejecting their fathers still holds water. Extend it to the writer as well.

I'm not interested in stilted language or whatever, but you really seem hung up on my word choices. I don't really care. But I think it's odd you engage in ad hominem attacks or dodges of my argument and then have the gall to talk about the intellectual honesty of my argument.

Clearly, my argument was about the Boomer attitude towards the "Greatest Generation", but you want me to be this guy who is concerned with Spielberg personally. I'm not. My problem with the film has to do with the Boomer narcissism and how this film serves as an apology to their fathers. My general attitude is that I'm not the one with the daddy issues, and I wish it had been left out of the film.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by LoveThatMoney

Who knows where?

Member since Jan 2008

12268 posts

Posted on 1/15/13 at 5:42 pm to Baloo

First, I'd like to stop this pissing match and extend the olive branch, but before I do, I will reply.

(a) I wasn't initially insulting you for using big words. I was actually being sincere. Since my initial post, I have stated that you appear to use stilted language in your posts, which is true, and it appeared to be in an attempt to lend credence to your arguments rather than relying on the arguments themselves. No one uses words like "effete" or "haliography" in everyday conversation. I have no problem with it and, in fact, I rather enjoy it. Nevertheless, in an argument on a message board, it appears to be an attempt at befuddling those who argue against you.

(b) I have since found a different meaning for the words "haliographic" and "haliography." I have always understood it to mean "a description of the sea," which you can find easily enough by googling "haliography." Haliographic, as an adjective, appears to have a meaning closer to hyperbolic or, to put it in layman's terms, putting the pussy on a pedestal. I've never heard it used in that manner before.

(c) I believe Opum is the moral center of the film whose morality is misplaced in the world of war. His understanding of war and the world is idealized and filled with the grandiose notions of duty to country, despite his cowardice. His misplaced morality causes much pain to his comrades and to himself. You are certainly meant to dislike him, I agree, but you are also meant to see the toll of war and the evolution of his character from weak to strong at the end.

(d) I wasn't attempting to artfully dodge the fact that this is Spielberg's movie. It seemed as if you were saying he was the sole impetus behind the characters and their development (or lack of it). I disagreed. The screenwriter certainly had something to do with it. And yes, the notion that there is an odd sense of the boomer generation rejecting their fathers may still hold water. Nevertheless, my point of this is that the fact that Spielberg did not write the script certainly chips away at the argument that it is Spielberg's Ode to the Greatest Generation, particularly as it relates to Opum as a character.

(e) Let me say that the ad hominem attacks began with you stating I am an anti-intellectual, which is both insulting and incorrect. Let me also say that I have in no way attempted to dodge your arguments and, in fact, have attacked them head-on with concrete examples against them. I have the gall to challenge the intellectual honesty of your arguments because of the arguments I have posed against you. In fact, I'll say this: I do think the film is meant to pay homage to the "Greatest Generation." I can even buy your argument that it is based out of some strange need for the boomer generation to apologize to their fathers. What I don't agree with is:

(f) That Opum is in some way an illustration of the boomer generation and, thereby, the embodiment of Spielberg's (and the boomers') self-pity, which is where your argument began in the first place. I don't want you to be the guy who is attacking Spielberg personally, rather I disagree with your initial argument, which is that Opum is the embodiment of the boomer generation. Or, at least, you have not convinced me of that yet. And fair enough you wish Opum had been left out of the film, but to me, he was probably the most interesting character aside from Hanks'.

In any case, this is likely better resolved over beers rather than over a message board. So I'll leave you with this: I apologize for any affront to your person or personality I have made. I am not out to attack anyone, except H-Town Tiger, who I already told I was merely joking when I sarcastically attacked him for hating popular, critically acclaimed films in a thread about Shakespeare In Love.

This post was edited on 1/15/13 at 6:18 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Movie/TV Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board