I got what I wanted. An hour and a half of intense chasing scenes, with shoot-em-up interludes, and of course the snippets here and there of a background story, that of course, is never really resolved. But than again, those background stories are never to be resolved; their purpose is to distract the audience from what some may describe as the monotony of a big explosive action packed, internationally actored film, set in our present-day war infested lives. At least it gives many a chance to escape that, or at least view the War on Terrorism as somehow a foreign subject.
Vantage Point for the late night viewer was definitely too involved. Not that everyone would have gone thinking about war, international involvement, US intervention, or maybe even blame. No, I suspect many of the late night movie goers went to chillax (Chill and Relax-youngster colloquialism), set their minds free from another mind numbing day at work or their studies. From the anamalistic grunts and hee-haws that escaped their mouths, it seemed that they were not ready to get involved in another superficial analysis of our present international situation; nor did it seem that any one was ready for the “Memento”-esque rewinds in the time continuum of the movie. (Not such a new technique, as Kurosawa displayed in Rashomon-A film I admit I have not seen yet, but have been told I need to.)
Definitely not the most phenomenal film I have seen that intended to touch on global terrorism and make any sort of commentary. The film did employ many international famous actors as well as cameos from (some note noteworthy) recognizable Hollywood actors. But that is where the kudos stop.
The film seems to be striving for a level of political neutrality, with hawks and doves, goodies and baddies on both sides (and even a few ambiguous ones, which is brave for the Hollywood mainstream), but there’s still a sense that, as the carnage erupts and the bodies pile up, so long as the President of the United States is OK, all will be well.
Most people of color, descendants of Non-Caucasian Americans and other Non-Americans, either end up dead or disappear for the sake of the safety of the President of the United States. What happened to the other representatives of the other countries present? Terrorism takes many faces, no one nation is safe from evil deeds, but most are from a different hemisphere, those that are found within the US ranks are lone rogues, and seem to be recruited by OTHERS.
I asked myself, and my mother, as we walked out of the cinema, did anyone of those few late night movie goers see that? Did they not get the misconceptions developing over the erroneous portrayal that Hollywood gave us to consume? From the “I thought that was corny” and “I could handle the first two time swaps, but after that, huh” I am disappointed with people and youth in particular. It seems even the most flightiest of messages was too much to consume for them.
I wonder what that would arouse these lackluster non-politicos. Do they think change just happens because it happens? I think some people might have missed some important history lessons.
May 7, 2008
Critical Analysis of “Vantage Point”
Posted by xicanom2 under Blogroll, Critical Analysis, Social Commentary, film | Tags: criticism, film, Hollywood, International Actors, Social Commentary, Vantage Point, War of Terrorism, youth |1 Comment
I got what I wanted. An hour and a half of intense chasing scenes, with shoot-em-up interludes, and of course the snippets here and there of a background story, that of course, is never really resolved. But than again, those background stories are never to be resolved; their purpose is to distract the audience from what some may describe as the monotony of a big explosive action packed, internationally actored film, set in our present-day war infested lives. At least it gives many a chance to escape that, or at least view the War on Terrorism as somehow a foreign subject.
Definitely not the most phenomenal film I have seen that intended to touch on global terrorism and make any sort of commentary. The film did employ many international famous actors as well as cameos from (some note noteworthy) recognizable Hollywood actors. But that is where the kudos stop.
As blogger Tim Footman sums it up:
The film seems to be striving for a level of political neutrality, with hawks and doves, goodies and baddies on both sides (and even a few ambiguous ones, which is brave for the Hollywood mainstream), but there’s still a sense that, as the carnage erupts and the bodies pile up, so long as the President of the United States is OK, all will be well.
Most people of color, descendants of Non-Caucasian Americans and other Non-Americans, either end up dead or disappear for the sake of the safety of the President of the United States. What happened to the other representatives of the other countries present? Terrorism takes many faces, no one nation is safe from evil deeds, but most are from a different hemisphere, those that are found within the US ranks are lone rogues, and seem to be recruited by OTHERS.
I asked myself, and my mother, as we walked out of the cinema, did anyone of those few late night movie goers see that? Did they not get the misconceptions developing over the erroneous portrayal that Hollywood gave us to consume? From the “I thought that was corny” and “I could handle the first two time swaps, but after that, huh” I am disappointed with people and youth in particular. It seems even the most flightiest of messages was too much to consume for them.
I wonder what that would arouse these lackluster non-politicos. Do they think change just happens because it happens? I think some people might have missed some important history lessons.