Eastwood to direct WWII drama for Spielberg

[Kiwi Cowboy]

Looks interesting this project

[bigdai]

I think that wombat makes some good points on the historical accuracy that directors show towards films based on history.  I know that this is a discussion that has been partially covered before on the old and this board. However, as a historian and obviously a film fan myself I think it is worth discussing again and believe that diectors have a certain responsibilty to recreate an interpretation of the truth rather than a 'movie' based on the truth.  How many kids today think that Pearl Harbor was a stalemate if not an American victory due to two pilots played by Josh Hartnett and Ben Affleck.

I also think that we can pre-judge directors/procuders (i'm not confusing the terms by the way) based on their previous work.  In this instance not Clint due to his portfolio but certainly Spielberg due to his.  He may have had nothing to do with Pearl Harbor but he was key in the production of films such as Private Ryan and Schindler's List.  Both films came under fire from certain groups  for their accuracy.  I'm not saying we should judge Flags of Our Fathers before we see it but there is nothing wrong with expecting a certain kind of film from some personalities whether good or bad.   Eg - we all look forward to a Clint film on this site because we have some expectation based on previous experience.  Those of a reasonable outlook are often very pleased with his procuct or disappointed.  There is nothing wrong with having an expectation of a Spielberg influenced film and being pleasantly suprised, which I hope I will be and judging by Clint's previous work in other genre, I look forward to being.

I just hope that Flags of our Fathers will be a film that does not  live in infamy which the non-Spielberg influenced Pearl Harbor clearly is.

[vik]

good point bigdai - pearl harbour - yuk
pearl harbour was such a big event in history and to be treated like that was a disgrace

i think memphis belle was an incredible film - i think its about capturing authenticity and trying to put peope in that place at that time

saving private ryan - started off that way but ended up with tom hanks well sounding like tom hanks (in other words it got lost somewhere) by the end i was just saying find him and lets finish

i think alot of films today start off all ok and up in a mess i think its almost like the script writers or something say well if we give 20 minutes what the hell - but a film is for the whole whatever minutes

and if its going to be factual then make it  factual and don't waffle about it - its like the patriot or pearl harbour half the people who might have seen it won't bother

more and more directors put in stuff that is controversial to make a movie sell - thats not a problem but like pearl harbour i think it should have been given another name because what it was trying to do was fool people into going to a movie about pearl harbour - the people who died at pearl harbour deserve more

[GBU]

good point bigdai - pearl harbour - yuk
i think memphis belle was an incredible film - i think its about capturing authenticity and trying to put peope in that place at that time

I agree with you on this one.

 Another very accurate movie is Band of Brothers (It was a mini series but still as good as a movie). It was 100% accurate. They interviewed the 101st Airbourne members and just retold their stories through the series. I HIGHLY recommend it to anybody.

[vik]

only trouble with band of brothers was it became a bit repetitive

its not really a critism - rather an observation - because of its length  - sometimes it was on 2 times a week

probably be better getting them on dvd

[GBU]

Oh ya. I agree with you on that.

The only problem is that the box set is $80. It has 6 dvds, 5 for episodes, and 1 for bonus stuff. Took me a while to save up for it, but the money was well spent.

[vik]

how many hours is that then in all ?


still as you say i expect good viewing

i liked the episode at the eagles nest quite funny

[GBU]

All the episodes combined, it comes out to about 12.5 hours. With the bonus features it is 15+. So you get your money's worth.

The funniest part, in my opinion is on the bonus features, when they "train" the actors to act like soldiers. It is just funny to see and hear them whine and grumble throughout the whole ordeal.  

[vik]

why you a soldier then ??

were thay all actors?

of course can you call david swimmer an actor  
actually that bit was a bit odd

[bigdai]

only trouble with band of brothers was it became a bit repetitive

its not really a critism - rather an observation - because of its length  - sometimes it was on 2 times a week

probably be better getting them on dvd

This is the problem directors have.  It is difficult to include all information that historians would like to see in a two hour film.   They often do not have the time to include historically important but to a film complimentary information.  They have to concentrate more of their efforts on story, pace and characters.  

I have not seen Band of Brothers but as a mini-series I am guessing that there was more time to dedicate to this accuracy and relevance.  This makes the film less interesting to a historically passive viewer who is more interested in the spectacle.  Imagine if Private Ryan had been 2 and 1/2 hours of the battle at the beginning without the story that was the spine of the film.  People would soon become bored of the film if they didn't know the characters or cared whether they lived or died.  It seems to be a question of balance to me.  I'm not sure that people would have minded Pearl Harbor if it had had a different name.  The fact that it was called Pearl Harbor led people to believe it was about the attack.  If it was called something else to do with the romantic triangle, i'm sure there wouldn't have been such a critical attack.  Due to it's name however, it should have been based far more on history.

There aren't just viewer concerns though there are other dimensions such as financial backers, audience projections, intended rating (Pearl Harbor was a 12) etc etc.  These all determine what the content of a film will be, historical or not.

[vik]

about private ryan nobody expected a 2 and half hour battle - and it would porbably have been too much anyway to bear

but after the hype etc. you would have expected the film not to get into such boredom - which eventually did - and went on and on about tom hank's character which it did

tha same with pearl harbour all the hype etc. - nothin like pearl harbour - it was a complete travesty

[Americanbeauty]

Personally, I found that Saving Private Ryan was WAY too long ...
Let's hope this one will be different ... well, actually it WILL be different because Clint will be directing ... that will be a first for him, directing a historical movie ... he's up to it ... he's up to anything, if you ask me.

 I'm looking forward to seeing it ...

So is it already in pre production ?
Any clue concerning the actors ? or the release date ?

[Brendan]

well, actually it WILL be different because Clint will be directing ... that will be a first for him, directing a historical movie ... he's up to it ... he's up to anything, if you ask me.

Bird.

[Americanbeauty]

Yeah ...

oops  

[Americanbeauty]

BUT when I said "historical" I meant World Wars and stuffs ... he never directed such a movie, did he ?
He acted in this kind of movies, but never directed one ... if my memory serves me well ....

[KC]

The Outlaw Josey Wales.

[Americanbeauty]

YUP (again) ... OOPS   ... I know Josey Wales / Civil War ... but still, this war was not a world war ...

Anyway it will be the first time ever he will direct a movie about world war 2, right ?

 ... it sounds great ... I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

So is it already in pre production ?
Any clue concerning the actors ? = Brad Pitt maybe   ?!  I'd love to see him with Clint ... just once ... !

[AKA23]

AmericanBeauty, I think it will be quite awhile before we hear anything substantive about Flags of Our Fathers. We don't even know whether it will be Clint's next film, or whether he'll do somethng else first. I suspect it will probably be his next film, especially because Spielberg is so busy and has a lot of projects planned, but he might want to do that music-themed project he was talking about, or the Niel Armstrong biopic, or something else entirely. I think it's pretty useless to be speculating about it this early because we just don't know anything at all about it yet and as we don't know anything about the characters, most of us can't pick actors for the various roles because it wouldn't be an informed decision. I'm sure that when things begin moving, it will be posted here, and we'll all know about it

[GBHermosa]

Before MDB was going into production, the rumor was that Clint's next movie would star Russell Crowe(sp?).  I am not sure that this is still the case.  But, one reason that MDB was put into production so quickly was so that Clint could get out and do that next movie.  MDB was a very short pre-production, shoot, and post production.  So, this had something to do with why Clint took MDB as his next role.  I am not sure if Russell Crowe would be in "Flags."  But, he is a great actor.  So, you never know.

[AKA23]

That's interesting. Thanks for the information, GBH. Any more possible starring roles for Clint on the horizon?