Romance? More like heartache, I think. I think it's a very valid and useful tool to integrate the human story into historical films, because who would care about history if it didn't have an impact the human condition? But, there was nothing remotely romantic about Pearl. I enjoy reading your views on films, Pidge because you seem to be able to see them without getting caught up in the hype.

LOL! DH & I saw that movie & it was such a turkey you could almost hear the gobbles coming from outside the theater!

Thanks for a little reminder of the pomposity & ridiculousness of the entertainment industry.

Romance???? well, gag me with a spoon!

Calliope, I totally agree that integrating the elements of ordinary life into a historical film is a crucial way of demonstrating the significance of the history. Think Cold Mountain, for example. But sometimes the heartache to which you refer is rendered as bathos and the "romance" is schoolyard. Some otherwise excellent films--Saving Private Ryan comes to mind--are rendered pathetic when the history is subsumed to the "love story." I may be entirely wrong, not having seen Pearl Harbor, but I think that's what was happening there.

The dd at 14 LOVED Pearl Habor. Without the romance she never would have had interest in it. She said is that the war Grandpa was in? And I said yes, but he was in the Western Theater, not the Pacific and that led to the firs conversation about WW11. So it did serve a purpose, and we watched it together. A 3 hankie one.

Romance has been a part of war movies for as long as I can remember. The Revolutiion,the Civil War,World War !,World War II,the Korean War and Viet Nam. Anyone ever see Coming Home? Random Harvest? It's a long long list. I remember my mother telling me of relationships between her friends and soldiers and I have no problems with romance being integrated into a film on the war. These films aren't documentaries. I saw Pearl Harbor and the special effects and the scenes of the men trapped below the water were gut wrenching and something I'll never forget. I don't remember much about the romantic story line. So many of those World War II films with Robert Mitchum,John Wayne and all the rest had love stories running through them and they were good.

I don't think that the "romance" angle was played up in those old movies. The male/female relationship just happened to be there to flesh out the story. The stories would usually have worked just as well without it. It certainly wasn't there " to appeal to viewers."

I think that everyone that could saw all of those movies in the 1940s because they wanted to be closer to what their friends and relatives were enduring. Romance was the last reason to see the movie.

Saturday was the big movie day. Our theaters were close together. they started showing at 11:00 So if we tried, we could catch two or three in one afternoon. Then home and inside with the blackout curtains drawn. It was hard dating when you couldn't drive around after dark.

As Marda rightly points out, this movie is not a documentary. And I think it does serve a purpose if it gets people into a theatre to see it who might not otherwise.

If you think this is a bad movie, Pidge, that's quite one thing, but to dismiss it because it has a romantic angle is particulary unfair when you haven't even seen it! Not like you.

Andie, I'm so tired of the kind of dismissive statement you made. The entertainment industry is not all pomposity and ridiculousness but yet it's bashed as such all the time. An easy mark, isn't it? One broad stroke to categorize an entire industry and make it seem nothing more than pompous and ridiculous.

Remarks such as yours diminish the people in the industry who strive to do good work ~ both of a serious and purely entertainment nature. Do you think making people laugh in the midst of this mess we live in is pompous and ridiculous?

Sheila, reasons for not seeing the film included the bad reviews and word of mouth comments about how it was awful, but the kicker was the trailers' emphasis on the love story and how predictable it all looked. There are so many good films out there that one that gets roundly panned doesn't seem to deserve much attention, especially when the director places the love story before the "historical significance" of Pearl Harbor. Of the three people I know who saw this film, every one of them thought it was a dog. I am very skeptical of "war stories" that turn out not to be about war at all. Private Ryan again. I don't think I have to see the film to have a good idea of what happens in it and to know that it's not my cup of tea.

I didn't expect PH to be a documentary and I agree, as I already said, that history comes alive when it is seen through individual eyes. I'm sure plenty of folks really liked the film despite the fact that it was a critical bust, and I have no quarrel with that. Also, if, as Tibs says, it provided an opportunity for a good conversation with a dd, then go for it. None of that alters my opinion that Bruckheimer put the cart before the horse.

I have to say that I agree with Andie, at least in part, because Hollywood really is cynical and often ridiculous in too many cases.

Pidge, I agree the entertainment industry is, as you say, in part ridiculous and pompous. That's not the problem I have with Andie's comment. The problem I have is simply how dismissive it is. A blanket condemnation. I think such one size fits remarks cause a good many problems in the world and I'm disturbed by such casual characterizations. How would you feel if, because my child had attended a school with poor teaching standards, I dismissed the entire educational system as worthless?

I do happen to think if Bruckheimer was going to speak of both the romance and the history in the same sentence it is in the correct order - I believe the last thing spoken is often the first thing remembered. But not always :)

Shelia, different strokes for different folks. You were in the industry, so I'd expect you to take a different view.

I don't know if anyone saw, but the New York Times website is showing a series of 5 articles written in 1942 about the recovery effort in the dockyard, and the process of rebuilding the ships that weren't beyond recovery. They were never printed at the time owing to censorship issues, but the NYTimes decided to make them available on this anniversary.
As the articles make clear, the astounding skills and efforts of the Navy Yard in rebuilding these shattered vessels was nothing short of astonishing.

you may need to register, but they don't send you any emails or share yoru address.

Here is a link that might be useful: NYTimes Pearl Harbor special section

Bottom line for me is that so-called "war" movies that distract us from that reality with "romance" are selling us short and historical significance is short-changed by that distraction. Think really good war movies, like Apocalyse Now or an oldie like All Quiet on the Western Front. Pearl Harbor was merely entertainment, a summer blockbuster, a studio money-maker playing off 9/11 and throwing in a little sex on the side.
There was an article in yesterday's daily newspaper about the "romance" of WWII, insofar as it tallied the number of men (and I'm sure some women) who had affairs all over the world despite wives and kids back home at least for some of them, left plenty of orphans behind, and most of whom never looked back. And there's lots more to that story that there is no room here to recount. How often do you see any of that in a "war" movie?

Pidge,do you feel that way about just war movies,or any movie which involves something that occurred in history? Separating relationships from dipictions of historical events seems odd to me,unless you are viewing it with the idea of only gaining information. I agree with you about Pearl Harbor and the whole blockbuster thing. Do you remember when you used to go to the movies and they would show the coming attractions of films which would be there in 2 weeks? Grandkid and I went to see something or other a couple of weeks ago and they showed the preview of a film coming out in the fall of 2007. That's gross. Way too much hype these days.

Not really, Marda, and I sound a lot more strict than is really the case. It's just that Bruckheimer's comment really rubbed me the wrong way because so many war movies aren't even about war and this one looked worse than most. Maybe I should just put up the quote and otherwise keep my mouth shut, lol!

I think it's interesting to read the quote and then see all the differening opinions. That's what they're there for..to invoke discussion.