I can't stand people my age.
-
rcvincelli — 16 years ago(July 26, 2009 07:08 PM)
Wow, what a nice post. Its refreshing to know young people such as yourself can appreciate a masterpiece like The Sand Pebbles.
I saw it in the theaters at the tender age of eight with my cousin when it came out in 1966. We were totally engrossed by it and loved Steve McQueen. We even had the good fortune of meeting Steve several times as he used to ride his motorcycle in the same area as we did (Phelan, Ca).
The Sand Pebbles is an epic film that needs to be experienced. All the performances are top notch, especially Steve, Richard Attenborough, Richard Crenna, and Mako. As for Candice Bergenwow, was she hot in this one.
As far as your friends are concernedsighwhat can you say? Its a shame that they do not have the attention span that you do; they missed out on a killer movie. But its not just young people that have no taste or patiencemany of my friends didnt get the movie or thought it was boring. I dont get them. I found it to be thoroughly effective as an action film, a drama, a character study and a love story. The power of the storytelling and emotional resonance is second to none. I have seen this film many timesmore than any other movieonly 2001: A Space Odyssey, Pink Floyd: The Wall and Jacobs Ladder come close.
Anyway, great post. Its wonderful to know that there are young people like you in this world.
Thanks for renewing my faith in our future.
Rich -
CactusHazretleri — 16 years ago(August 20, 2009 01:21 AM)
This movie was very good, and a very interesting theme; I'm a bit older I guess, at about 25, and I have to say that while I really liked the movie, there were a lot of places in which I felt the plot could have moved faster without losing anything. Yes, I'm sure people on here will criticize me for saying that (if they ever read this) but they really could have shaved of at least a half hour of this and maybe closer to forty five minutes and not left anything important out. Perhaps it's a function of people having more to do these days, but we have come to expect that if we haven't received a tremendous psychological blow in the previous scene - and we need to recharge from it - something new and important should be happening in the scene we're watching.
The whole point with a movie is to create an emotional reaction in the viewer and in that sense it's a lot like music - if you play it too quickly or too slowly the effect either changes or you lose it. This movie builds into a fascinating crescendo at the end, but I think it might have done a bit better to keep up the interest in the space before that.
Furthermore, to some extent, yes, movies do get better with every generation of movie makers - it doesn't mean they're all equal or equally original, but it does mean that they're standing on the shoulders of giants, so to speak, and therefore might be able to see just a tad farther - without any of that diminishing the accomplishments of their predecessors. Ever since Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket, we as audiences have come to take a bit more to turn our stomachs - the element of indescribable horror related to war has to be made explicit either through dialogue about how horrible it is or through a visceral reaction triggered by seeing something awful. That kind of jarring experience has worked its way into the more serious dramas of what can still be considered mainstream cinema today in a way I don't think it had at the time this movie was made. If the movie were made today, for example, the psychological effects on Frank of seeing his friend tortured to death might be explored more fully.
Having said all of that, it's still a phenomenal piece, a very refreshing look at an interesting time and place, which resonates with us now that the lessons of our neocolonial empire and its negative aftereffects start to sink in after 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan.
On an unrelated note, I'm kind of surprized the Taiwanese allowed a movie that critical of Chiang Kai Shek to be filmed on their island at that time. -
rcvincelli — 16 years ago(September 02, 2009 09:04 PM)
For starters, that was a very nice post!
Twenty-five? You are still a young person!
Glad you enjoyed itand yesthe movie proceeds at a very deliberate pace, but it has a story to tell, and it tells it well.
I loved Full Metal Jacket (all of Stan's work, for that matter), and Apocalypse Now (saw it on a hit of acid!) and The Sand Pebbles is far from shocking today.
But the emotional resonance of this film is second to none. While the shock value is low compared to more modern works, including those war films mentioned above, it has a way of getting under one's skin, simply by virtue of the fact you are inherently involved on an emotional level with the films characters. I wish more movies today had the ability to involve the viewer so acutely with what's happening on the screen.
My initial reply to the OP addressed these issues. With today's short attention span crowdwho are desperate for the instant payoff, this film will probably bore them to deathwhich is very sad.
I absolutely love your music analogy. Well doneand spot on.
I am a huge Pink Floyd fan. I remember trying to play 'Shine On You Crazy Diamond' for friends back in 1975, when I was in the US Navy. They made me turn it offbefore the bass and drums even began. I was forced to listen to Foghat instead (I actually like Foghat).
The point is, the payoff here takes timeyou have to invest a bit more of your life in this filmbut the payoff is huge. The hand-to-hand combat at the boom in the finale is, or rather was, gut-wrenching at the time. Which only added to the tension, which was already peaking.
Steve McQueen, one of the greatest athlete's in the world (if you don't think riding a primitive, ill-handling motorcycle at high speeds through the desert terrain is easytry it sometime), but I believe his acting skills were greatly underappreciated. And this IS his best film.
Thanks again for the nice post.
Rich -
kducklin2 — 16 years ago(October 10, 2009 12:25 PM)
Firstly, congratulations to the younger posters for proving that in every generation there are people who can recognize the real meaning of quality in a motion picture.
I guess that for us older birds, to watch "Sand Pebbles" is to wonder where the years have gone. For me, this McQueen's greatest movie. Maybe it's one of those strange confluences of actor and character/subject, but I think he reveals probably more depth here than in any other role. And it's a period piece too, which, unlike many recent historical movies, makes little or no concession to its modern audience. (I rather liked him in 'Enemy of the People" too.)
I am watching it again now for the first time in a couple of years, and depressingly It strikes me that if this film were remade today (deliver us) all the exteriors would probably be manufactured using CGI
"Duck, I says" -
deepblue742 — 16 years ago(October 16, 2009 11:22 PM)
I won't deny that there seems to have been a general dumbing down of the United States' younger generations as a result of the sharp decline of public education, which has generally failed to inspire or challenge the youth to do more than become obsessed with pop culture. Trust me, even when I was in high school (now 31 yrs old) I would watch "nerd" shows or historical drama like "Sand Pebbles" alone or with a friend who understood.
Majority of the members of many societies, no matter the time period, have no particular tenacity of intelligence and lack a basic curiosity for other cultures, history, language or science. Your particular age group, no offence, is a lover of short term A.D.D. like pleasures, new genre evolving music, vulgar comedy, action based visceral entertainment, no newsflash there, as most of us older folks have been there.
We all progress and mature in various ways at different times. I've had many a high school friend who was a complete idiot in high school mature to become a great friend in college, life is simply about timing: finding friends, lovers and colleagues who can enhance and reinforce who you are and where you both would like to go down the road. Heed some great advice told above. -
gdd55 — 16 years ago(November 24, 2009 07:46 AM)
It's not just the young people. I know several people of my own generation (40s and 50s) who don't like any movie unless it's in color. The audience of today prefers computer generated graphics, impossible car chases, and a lot of loud noises. They need to be wowed by explosions and have blood sprayed across the screen every couple of minutes or they get bored. I don't even bother discussing movies with most people. They just don't get them.
-
bronze006 — 15 years ago(April 28, 2010 08:54 AM)
I know what your talking about, my older brotherim 23 and hes five years older than me..ill let you do the math. Anyways, i was watching this last night and he came in and wanted to change it to the disney channelTHE DISNEY CHANNEL!I literally had to yell at him so that i could see the ending of it and the amazing thing is he only does it when im watching an old movie like frank langella's Dracula (which is my favourite movie) or the Force 10 From Navarone which i also lovemy brother literally drives me up the wall and over it!
-
powerslayer67 — 15 years ago(November 29, 2010 10:38 PM)
Some people on here said that we have Transformers and the 60's had Beach Party films. Yeah, but Frankie Avalon and the Beach Party gang didn't rake in a BILLION dollars either, distributing their cheese. I'm sure they would've been embarrassed had that been the case. Good thing they had films like The Sand Pebbles, The Graduate and Bonnie & Clyde to look at.
But to the OP, hang in there buddy. I was in the same shoes in high school and even now. Although now, I don't make an effort to try and help them see the brilliance of great films. I enjoy them with my brother and dad. Most of the time myself. Not alot of people are willing to gather around and watch a Charlie Chaplin film these days. I go pretty far back. I'm only 22. -
Hancock_the_Superb — 15 years ago(February 07, 2011 05:45 PM)
No movie made a billion dollars in those days, so that's a rather stupid argument. As is the whole "kids these days are idiots" (corollary: "I'm superior to them because I like old movies") line of argument, really.
"You are, in your own idiom, a punk - and a second-rate punk at that!" -
narnia4 — 15 years ago(January 29, 2011 09:13 PM)
Well, not everyone your (most likely "our") age is like that. There's been people like that for years, and some (like you) can obviously appreciate a good movie. Imo some of that often goes away when you get older, some of it stays. Of the movies that I first watched when I was younger, there are some I appreciate more and some I appreciate less.
You're right though, I can't stand the extremely shallow view some have, where only the very latest thing made in their lifetime is worth appreciating. There's centuries of great literature, a century of great film, and yet some people won't touch anything that was made more than five years ago. Pathetic.
But just to reinforce my point once more, it isn't necessarily just an age thing. There are younger people who will appreciate films from any era, and then there are some who only like certain kinds of films. For example, I have a friend who I know could NEVER watch this, but not just because it's an old movie. I showed him the original War of the Worlds movie (a very fun movie), and he liked it a lot. So I guess it's people of all ages today who are "programmed" to only appreciate certain kinds of films there are some old classics that most will appreciate (some of the top movies on IMDb are good examples of movies that "withstand the test of time" so to speak), there are movies that are more popular today than when they were released. Unfortunately, there are other classics that are largely ignored because they don't fit "modern standards" (I hate that phrase so much). -
mpae — 14 years ago(May 15, 2011 07:36 AM)
Why do people your age always have to make a big deal when they like an older movie. "OO LOOK AT ME I'M 15 AND MY FAVOURITE MOVIE IS REAR WINDOW."
I've seen so many threads where a teenager tries to pander to the older audience by constantly bragging how they are so different from others of the same age and how they are so much better because they don't like CGI. Its annoying.
Nobody is going to give you a medal or attention. Everywhere I go on these boards I look for interesting debates but instead find either "THIS MOVIE SUX" or "I AM 14 AND LOVE BRESSON, NOW WHICH OLD GUY WANTS TO TAKE ME ON A DATE?" -
mpae — 14 years ago(May 17, 2011 07:52 AM)
Yes, yes they can. But that has nothing to do with what I posted so I don't know why you replied to me lol. My point was I hate young teenagers acting like suck ups and almighty because they can sit through an old movie. It kind of implies there is something wrong with old movies to begin with. I fully support teenagers watching old films but don't want to hear how great they are for liking them. I actually EXPECT the snotrags to like them.
CGI does look fake but young people on here diss it all the time to score points with the older crowd who were raised on model sharks in Jaws that actually look more realistic than the crap in Deep Blue Sea. -
gtbarker — 14 years ago(May 16, 2011 02:16 PM)
Simple, people have swallowed the lie that old is bad and new is always better. Only a few people have enough about them to look around and back to see if it's true or not - you are one of the fortunate ones who has done this and then can appreciate what you find. You should thank your lucky stars your not just another one of the mundanes who can't.
-
anghmho — 14 years ago(August 09, 2011 11:38 PM)
Your comment reminds me of an incident I experienced about 15 years ago. I was watching "Odd Man Out" (1947) as part of a James Mason retrospective at the Walter Reade theater in New York. This is the film that brought James Mason to the attention of Hollywood back when.
Seated directly in front of me were two young women in their early 20's as engrossed in the film as I was. At the conclusion of the film, the house lights went up. One of these young ladies turned to the other and said, "They don't make movies like that any more." And she was right.
More to the point, though, is that you can't make movies like that anymore, because the audiences aren't there anymore that would ensure a return on the film makers' efforts.
That isn't to say that there weren't crappy films back then. There were many; most people went to the movies once or twice a week, but there was no television back then, so the movie studios ground out mass entertainment. Now television supplies most of the crapeverything except exploding cars, which remains the province of film.
Many old movies are terrific, and so are some new movies. You already know that you can't follow anybody else's taste but your own. I realized the same thing myself when I was about 12 years old. That was 60 years ago. It gets easier as you get older. -
davidwile — 14 years ago(October 17, 2011 10:39 PM)
Hey folks,
Sometime in 1964 or 1965 I read the "Sand Pebbles" novel which was not exactly a skinny fast read. I was absolutely captivated by it, and I read it again before the film came out a year or two later. The novel's author made the characters so real for me, and the story lacked nothing as far as I was concerned. I enjoyed McQueen and several other actors who were cast in the film, so I looked forward to seeing how this great story played out on film.
As great as I thought the book was, I also thought the film measured up in every way. The Jake Holman I read on the pages was the same Jake Holman I saw on the screen. I was not watching Steve McQueen; it was Jake Holman I was watching. My brother has a list of his "Top 10 Films" that does sometimes change over time, but I have never been able to come up with ten films to call my "Top 10 Films." I can assure you, however, that if you ask me to start on my "Top 10 Films," then "Sand Pebbles" would certainly be one of them.
The book just might also be one of my "Top 10 Books" if I had such a book list. "Sand Pebbles" is simply a great story whether it is read in print or seen on film.
Best wishes,
Dave Wile