|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 7, 2022 11:31:25 GMT -5
I watched a lot of Japanese movies over the last week or so. The Sword of the Beast (1965) Zatoichi’s Cane Sword (1967) Pastoral: To Die in the Country (1974) The Great Passage (2013) The Hungry Lion (2017) I started to watch Shin Godzilla last night but I was dozing off because I was just too tired, so I turned it off and I’m going to finish it tonight. Oh then you don't know the twist ending........ SPOILER Tokyo is a sled!
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2022 5:59:34 GMT -5
A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner, was released in US cinemas 30 years ago today: We all know the story (I’m sure), but a recap never hurts: at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Private William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo), a weak Marine who has requested a transfer, dies in mysterious circumstances. Prior to the death, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson (J. T. Walsh) had suggested Santiago be transferred, but base commander Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) believes that’d compromise safety elsewhere, so orders that he remain and be trained to a high standard. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is an inexperienced JAG lawyer who appears to have specialised in plea bargains, never actually having tried a case. However, he is thrown in at the deep end when tasked with investigating the death, which Col. Jessup has his own views on. This is an extremely powerful film, and perhaps a case could be made that this spawned the likes of JAG and NCIS. Not only are the performances absolutely riveting, but it also forces you to ask some serious questions about military duty, what is right, what is wrong, where is the line drawn, etc. Was Colonel Jessup right to demand that a physically weak Marine be forced to stay? Would it have been right to simply transfer him away? What are the circumstances of his death, and can a lawyer known for plea bargaining really try such a complex case? This left me with many questions, and nothing necessarily seemed clear-cut, despite the tragedy of Santiago’s death, which should never have happened. Also, has there ever been a film with so much fantastic dialogue?
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 9, 2022 10:49:22 GMT -5
A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner, was released in US cinemas 30 years ago today: We all know the story (I’m sure), but a recap never hurts: at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Private William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo), a weak Marine who has requested a transfer, dies in mysterious circumstances. Prior to the death, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson (J. T. Walsh) had suggested Santiago be transferred, but base commander Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) believes that’d compromise safety elsewhere, so orders that he remain and be trained to a high standard. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is an inexperienced JAG lawyer who appears to have specialised in plea bargains, never actually having tried a case. However, he is thrown in at the deep end when tasked with investigating the death, which Col. Jessup has his own views on. This is an extremely powerful film, and perhaps a case could be made that this spawned the likes of JAG and NCIS. Not only are the performances absolutely riveting, but it also forces you to ask some serious questions about military duty, what is right, what is wrong, where is the line drawn, etc. Was Colonel Jessup right to demand that a physically weak Marine be forced to stay? Would it have been right to simply transfer him away? What are the circumstances of his death, and can a lawyer known for plea bargaining really try such a complex case? This left me with many questions, and nothing necessarily seemed clear-cut, despite the tragedy of Santiago’s death, which should never have happened. Also, has there ever been a film with so much fantastic dialogue? That movie is completely unwatchable if you know anything about the law.
|
|
|
Post by Prince Hal on Dec 9, 2022 11:31:39 GMT -5
A Few Good Men, directed by Rob Reiner, was released in US cinemas 30 years ago today: We all know the story (I’m sure), but a recap never hurts: at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base, Private William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo), a weak Marine who has requested a transfer, dies in mysterious circumstances. Prior to the death, Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Markinson (J. T. Walsh) had suggested Santiago be transferred, but base commander Colonel Nathan Jessup (Jack Nicholson) believes that’d compromise safety elsewhere, so orders that he remain and be trained to a high standard. Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee (Tom Cruise) is an inexperienced JAG lawyer who appears to have specialised in plea bargains, never actually having tried a case. However, he is thrown in at the deep end when tasked with investigating the death, which Col. Jessup has his own views on. This is an extremely powerful film, and perhaps a case could be made that this spawned the likes of JAG and NCIS. Not only are the performances absolutely riveting, but it also forces you to ask some serious questions about military duty, what is right, what is wrong, where is the line drawn, etc. Was Colonel Jessup right to demand that a physically weak Marine be forced to stay? Would it have been right to simply transfer him away? What are the circumstances of his death, and can a lawyer known for plea bargaining really try such a complex case? This left me with many questions, and nothing necessarily seemed clear-cut, despite the tragedy of Santiago’s death, which should never have happened. Also, has there ever been a film with so much fantastic dialogue? That movie is completely unwatchable if you know anything about the law. Please don't go into detail. I can't handle the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2022 12:58:58 GMT -5
I know zero about the law - civilian or military - so I believe I’m safe.
(Please pick it apart, someone who knows the law)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2022 19:17:41 GMT -5
P.S. Doesn’t need a thread of its own, but the IMDb interface (desktop) sucks - and with each iteration, sucks even more. If something isn’t broke, don’t fix it.
But, hey, that’s the way to do things now. Forget practicality, it’s all about looking good. As long as it looks good, to hell with user experience.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 9, 2022 22:01:40 GMT -5
I haven't seen the film; but, I can tell you that military law is a different animal and it all depends on who is initiating the investigation as to how it will go down. They could conduct a simple investigation and then the presiding command will make the determination what happens next. Look at the USS Iowa explosion; the Navy was determined to sweep the safety issues under the carpet and pin blame on an innocent sailor. Anyone who wouldn't go along with that narrative was sent off to exile, to shut them up. However, enough people wouldn't be silenced and brought the facts to 60 Minutes, who aired them for the nation and the Navy was forced to publicly admit they had slandered an innocent (and conveniently dead) man, but still didn't accept responsibility for the unsafe conditions on the ship, starting with the 40 year-old powder charges, which had been improperly stored, in the height of summer, in Virginia. The group assigned to investigate its stability was the agency that signed off on its stability in the first place.
That, far too often, is military justice.
That said, you have different legal paths for different violations of the UCMJ. Lesser infractions are dealt with via non-judicial punishment, by the commanding officer, under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Charges are filed through the chain of command and the Executive office conducts an initial investigation. Depending on the facts and circumstances, the XO can outright dismiss the charges or endorse the referral to an Article 15 hearing. In the Navy it was called "Captain's Mast," since it was, traditionally, performed at the ship's main mast. In the Marine Corps, it is referred to as "Office Hours," and the Army just called it an Article 15 (Air Force, too, I think). The captain will then hear the case, with charges read, the statement of the accused, then hand down his decision. It is pretty rare that the CO would dismiss the charges, if the XO had endorsed it; but, it isn't impossible. The CO can then hand down punishments, within specific limi9tations, including: reduction in rank one grade, loss of up to 2/3 pay for up to 45 days, restriction to the ship for up to 45 days, extra duty for up to 45 days. He could do any combination of that, depending on how heavily he wanted to hammer the point home.
The accused can request a court martial, instead of captain's mast; but, the outcome isn't likely to be better, so it is pretty rare. More serious offenses are referred to a court martial for disposition, which is where you get into a court room setting. The Judge Advocate General's Corps provides judge and prosecuting and defending attorneys, though civilian defense lawyers can also be brought in. I took part in a court martial of a warrant officer (I acted as the bailiff of the court, since it had to be someone of higher rank and I was available) where he had both a Navy JAG lawyer and a civilian attorney, with the civilian pretty much handling the defense, with the Navy officer providing procedural advice. The prosecuting attorney actually got reprimanded by the judge (a Marine colonel) for not listening to the responses to his questions by witnesses, because he was trying to really hammer the defense and their responses weren't helping him. The case involved the sexual molestation of the warrant officer's step-daughter, who was 15, and it had gone on since at least the age of 11. She broke down to a school counselor and he was arrested and tried by civilian authority, but was now facing military justice, under the UCMJ. They were not retrying the civilian case but the specific violation of the UCMJ. At stake, really, was how severe his sentence would be. He got 10 years hard labor, at Leavenworth, which was too little, if you ask me. I spent part of my time there, listening to the testimony and wishing I had a sidearm. Only time I ever really contemplated violence against another person.
Court martials can be pretty well stacked against the accused, without too much trouble, though a good lawyer can unravel that.
Plea bargains are art of the military legal system, too (the case I experienced had a plea bargain), but that doesn't preclude a lawyer from going to trial, even if most of their cases have been plea bargains. He could ask for assistance from a more experienced colleague. The case I witnessed had, as I said, Navy and civilian lawyers on the defense and two military lawyers (one Navy, one Marine) on the prosecution.
Remember that it's Hollywood and the drama of the scene is more important than the reality. If the DOD provided assistance in filming, you can further expect the script was massaged to put the military in the best light.
In regards to transferring vs developing, a weak leader will transfer out a problem, unless all avenues have been explored and failed. However, that reflects poorly on the command. So, there is a vested interest in the command to try to develop the subordinate, through discipline and training. If they are too physically weak, then a medical officer would be brought in to make a determination as to whether they could medically carry out their duties. A CO cannot override medical decisions just as he could not order me, when I was a Disbursing Officer, to turn over the funds in my Disbursing Safe or have the combination to it. The CO's authority is pretty high; but, it isn't absolute. Again, without having seen the film, most COs would try to develop a poorly performing solider or sailor, as that is their job. However, if CO is overriding his XO, he had better have a damned good reason or it suggests he is unable to trust his own XO, which is a failure of his leadership.
One of the thigs that Hollywood rarely gets right is depicting real leadership, in a military environment. I don't mean bravery under fire, I mean leadership. Too often, the plot revolves more around bravery, particularly of a specific individual, rather than a leader directing a team effort, which is most of what occurs in combat and in daily duties. The film 12 O'Clock High, with Gregory Peck, is a good example of leadership. Peck has to relieve the CO of a B-17 bomber squadron, which has experienced high losses (disproportionate losses). The problem is the CO has gotten too close to his men and isn't able to be objective and push them to their best abilities. Peck restructures crew assignments and emphasizes the basic strategies again and again, to force the squadron to act as a cohesive unit. He forces an underperforming plane commander to step up by assigning him a crew of people who have been underperforming and makes it his responsibility to turn them into a crew, to get himself out of the dog house. He does just that. Soon, their efficiency improves and their morale picks up as they see the improvement. the mission success improves and it gets to the point that everyone wants to be in on the missions, including the chaplain and the adjutant, who manned waist gun positions. However, on a big, dangerous mission, Peck has a breakdown, because he has let himself get too close and has buckled under the stress of wanting to bring them all home. He is unable to man his plane and sits in a chair, in the operations room, staring ahead, until all of the aircraft return safely, from their mission. Part of his ultimate success, though, is down to the adjutant, played by Dean Jaeger, who acts as a check on Peck going too far and helps them understand the men of the squadron and what makes them tick, to better tailor his leadership techniques to them. Some need positive reinforcement and some need a challenge.
An Officer and A Gentleman is a pretty accurate film and it gets to the heart of an officer's responsibility and being part of a team, vs personal glory.
One of the best of the modern era is Band of Brothers, as illustrated by Maj Dick Winters (Damian Lewis), who was highly respected for his leadership. Initially, Easy Company is under the command of Captain Herbert Sobel, whose tough training regimen hones the company into a fit unit, able to push beyond perceived limits, but whose character flaws works against unit cohesion, as he is a martinet, with poor field skills. He operates under the fallacy that constantly shouting at his men is the same as leading them. Winters is a natural leader and does his best to support Sobel's overall intentions, while protecting the men from his over-reactions. It comes to a head when Sobel concocts a bogus charge to level against Winters and Winters refuses to take the lesser reprimand for the trumped up charge and demands his right to court martial. Winters is exonerated and Sobel is relieved of command and transferred to a training unit as that is where his talents lay. Over Normandy, the new company commander's aircraft is destroyed and Winters is left to take command of the company's survivors and lead them in carrying out their objective, to take out and artillery position, above Utah Beach. He carries out the operation in a textbook manner, which is still studied and taught to this day, in attacking a fortified position with a small assault force. Winters becomes the permanent company commander, where he continues to excel. After the men have linked up with ground troops and are able to get some rest, you see Winters' first concern is the welfare of his men and also to let them see a human side, when he tells one of the men, who was critical of him, that he isn't a Quaker, as he takes a swig of wine from the bottle the man had. The man had called him a Quaker and considered him a bad leader, because he had stopped him from indiscriminate killing, until he had proven his bravery under fire, in the assault on the gun positions. Winters moves up to battalion level, but his men are willing to follow him into the depths of hell, because they know he will look out for them and will bring them back out.
That is leadership, not heroism. That is often what gets lost when people talk about Audie Murphy, the most decorated American soldier of WW2. His memoir and the film adaptation (in which he starred) does a pretty good job of demonstrating his leadership qualities, as well as his heroism. The man was a sergeant, at 17. That is no small thing.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Dec 10, 2022 2:05:58 GMT -5
Carry On Sergeant: as Confessor warned us in the other thread a while ago, it isn't really a Carry On movie as they became familiar to us a few years after but still a very nice, I might almost say comforting comedy. Every character is a recognisable type, but at the same time, they aren't reduced to those types: the whole point of the story is that they all come together (eventually) and help each other to achieve a certain goal - for someone else's benefit, not their own - and in the course of all that, ... well, just watch it for yourself and you'll see.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 10, 2022 10:06:49 GMT -5
Airplane II: The Sequel was released 40 years ago today: You know, the first film is one of my favourite comedies. The sequel is okay, but it can’t hold a candle to the original. The jokes are few and far between, and, if I may use a drinks analogy, this is like Diet Coke compared to the Coke that is the first film (come on, no-one prefers Diet Coke over Coca-Cola, do they?). Still, it gave us this scene:
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 10, 2022 13:01:08 GMT -5
P.S. Doesn’t need a thread of its own, but the IMDb interface (desktop) sucks - and with each iteration, sucks even more. If something isn’t broke, don’t fix it. But, hey, that’s the way to do things now. Forget practicality, it’s all about looking good. As long as it looks good, to hell with user experience. I actually find this to be true of almost every website. Every “update” makes them less usable. That’s definitely true of IMDB. Also Netflix’s desktop interface (which was incredibly usable 15 years ago), Amazon, Goodreads (which is in the process of screwing up their interface), and the list goes on. Part of it seems to be that all of them want their desktop sites to mimic mobile sites. The problem is that I hate using most mobile sites or apps because they’re less useful and intuitive than desktop websites.
|
|
|
Post by Hoosier X on Dec 10, 2022 19:54:27 GMT -5
I’m thinking about watching this tonight:
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2022 7:29:28 GMT -5
Wall Street, directed by Oliver Stone, was released 35 years ago today: Junior stockbroker Bud Fox (Charlie Sheen) is taken under the wing of Wall Street legend Gordon Gekko (Michael Douglas), but things take a dark turn when Fox engages in insider trading. On one level, this is a good film with powerful performances - and is utterly intriguing on that level alone. Remember, lunch is for wimps, and greed is good! However, when I watched this on DVD (I’m guessing I was around 24-25), I found the financial terminology quite hard to keep up with. I still don’t know the difference between stocks and shares, and when the dialogue involved “straw buyers” and acronyms I’d not heard of, it became a bit impenetrable.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 11, 2022 12:25:28 GMT -5
I had never seen Metropolis in its entirety. It's amazing that a film almost a century old remains so relevant in its social commentary, and so innovative-looking in its cinematography!
I swear, some of the effects in there are still better than a lot of what we see in more modern productions.
Naturally, since this is a silent movie, there are aspects of the production that now look a bit quaint... like how characters keep running around as in a Roadrunner episode. But it only adds to the charm of a true classic.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 11, 2022 23:15:47 GMT -5
I had never seen Metropolis in its entirety. It's amazing that a film almost a century old remains so relevant in its social commentary, and so innovative-looking in its cinematography! I swear, some of the effects in there are still better than a lot of what we see in more modern productions. Naturally, since this is a silent movie, there are aspects of the production that now look a bit quaint... like how characters keep running around as in a Roadrunner episode. But it only adds to the charm of a true classic. Check out the version with a modern soundtrack, produced by Giorgio Moroder. Features performers like Freddy Mercury and Pat Benatar. The music still pretty much works with the imagery. The whole thing.....
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 13, 2022 11:52:18 GMT -5
@mrp posted about the Super Apes elsewhere here - and shared an Iron Man cover, which featured “Peril of the Apes” on the cover.
It got me thinking: “Peril on the Planet of the Apes” would be a great film title, assuming the franchise ever returns.
|
|