theGruppe
11-14-2006, 05:04 PM
I've recently been dealing with these guys: Battle in Seattle (http://movieset.com/tt0010205). BiS is being created by Stuart Townsend. There isnt much info out, but there are some pics, a cast list, and a poster:
http://www.movieset.com/images/films/tt0010205/p10/Photos/BiSPoster.jpg (http://movieset.com/tt0010205)
Honestly I'm not sure what to think. So many of these kind of films get made, World Trade Center, United 93, etc., and none of which were particularly good, not to mention that they tend to totally miss providing any kind of intelligent commentary on the film.
So now Townsend is doing this film about the Seattle Protests, and I question whether he, or anyone, could do anything interesting with it. There just isn't that much content in or surrounding the riots that you can use without having to fall back on to Hollywood stereotypes. The script, I hear, isn't bad, but it is a perspective piece, stitching together several different stories about characters stuck in the protest/riot. However, once again you have that issue that there just isn't that much story to the event, it was about ideas and abstractions.
Now compare that to the recent string of decent Rwanda movies, such as Hotel Rwanda, Running Dogs, A Sunday in Kigali, or The Last King of Scotland, which dealt with events that have a heavy narrative to them. These events made good movies because you can write a story that parallels the story of the event with the story of the characters.
The lack of story in these events often mean that you have to fill in the story with so much character that you have no choice but to go overboard, and the films become cheesy.
On the other hand, its an indy flick, no matter how hollywood these independent producers are, and as such might manage to go somewhere with the story. It doesn't look like they're turning it into another Pearl Harbour.
http://www.movieset.com/images/films/tt0010205/p10/Photos/BiSPoster.jpg (http://movieset.com/tt0010205)
Honestly I'm not sure what to think. So many of these kind of films get made, World Trade Center, United 93, etc., and none of which were particularly good, not to mention that they tend to totally miss providing any kind of intelligent commentary on the film.
So now Townsend is doing this film about the Seattle Protests, and I question whether he, or anyone, could do anything interesting with it. There just isn't that much content in or surrounding the riots that you can use without having to fall back on to Hollywood stereotypes. The script, I hear, isn't bad, but it is a perspective piece, stitching together several different stories about characters stuck in the protest/riot. However, once again you have that issue that there just isn't that much story to the event, it was about ideas and abstractions.
Now compare that to the recent string of decent Rwanda movies, such as Hotel Rwanda, Running Dogs, A Sunday in Kigali, or The Last King of Scotland, which dealt with events that have a heavy narrative to them. These events made good movies because you can write a story that parallels the story of the event with the story of the characters.
The lack of story in these events often mean that you have to fill in the story with so much character that you have no choice but to go overboard, and the films become cheesy.
On the other hand, its an indy flick, no matter how hollywood these independent producers are, and as such might manage to go somewhere with the story. It doesn't look like they're turning it into another Pearl Harbour.