Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!lmaher
From: lmaher@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.movies
Subject: Re: "Red Dawn" - (nf)
Message-ID: <3900059@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 18-Aug-84 03:28:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.3900059
Posted: Sat Aug 18 03:28:00 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 21-Aug-84 07:17:22 EDT
References: <773@ucla-cs.UUCP>
Lines: 83
Nf-ID: #R:ucla-cs:-77300:uokvax:3900059:000:3339
Nf-From: uokvax!lmaher    Aug 18 02:28:00 1984

#R:ucla-cs:-77300:uokvax:3900059:000:3339
uokvax!lmaher    Aug 18 02:28:00 1984

< SPOILER ALERT!     SPOILER ALERT!     SPOILER ALERT! >

Peter Reiher remarks that some critics are showing their ideology
in their reviews of "Red Dawn," and does so a little himself.
Net.movies is no place for political discussions (see you in
net.politics), so I'll reply briefly.  No criticism of Peter is
intended or implied, but his ideas are another matter.

First off, I agree a Soviet invasion of the U.S. is impossible
for logistical reasons - the Soviets have no force projection
capability except by land - flames to net.politics or net.flame,
not here please.  Surely you knew the movie was about a Soviet
invasion of America?  If you knew you couldn't suspend your
disbelief for two hours why bother seeing it?

>  a problem with consistency.  At one point, the kids are
>  incredibly clever guerilla fighters, at another they are idiots.
>  The only reason for this is to give them a chance to get killed,
>  as I see it.

The point is obviously that they're tired, they're hungry, and
they let their guard down.  And they pay for it.  No one is
perfect all the time, why would you expect them to be?  Actually,
I thought the fruit would be poisoned, or expected machineguns to
open up on them when they all got down there.

>  There were enough points of interest in "Red Dawn" to keep me
>  satisfied, if not thrilled.  The audience I saw it with, though,
>  loved it to an extent that is frightening.  Any anti-Communist,
>  or anti-Russian, sentiment uttered met with wild cheers, as did
>  the gunning down of Soviet troops.

I thought the humanity, as well as the inhumanity, of both sides
was well shown.  The first three soldiers the kids kill were just
taking souvenir photos of each other.  They stumble across each
other by accident, and only kill the soldiers to save themselves
from discovery.  The Cuban commander is a very sympathetic
figure, torn between his background as an insurgent and his
current position as "a policeman."

Would you have been happier if the audience had been cheering the
soldiers gunning down civilians?

>  They even cheered when the word "California" was mentioned in
>  passing.

OK, I'll admit I find *that* frightening. :-)

>  I found their wild enthusiasm for mayhem to be a bit too akin to
>  ancient Romans cheering on gladiators

Did the crowd you saw it with cheer as Robert's grief was warped
into self-destructive hatred and anger?  When the mortally
wounded girl stayed behind with a grenade to take one last enemy
with her?  When the father asked his sons to avenge him, or when
he was gunned down?  I think there was a lot more to this movie
than "they blowed up real good." If people expected to see a
"good ol' boys vs. commie trash" flick, I think they missed the
point.

>  (or more appropriately, cheering the lions which were rending the
>  Christians).

Excuse me.  Who were the lions and who were the Christians?

>  If this is any indication, "Red Dawn" will be a big hit and we
>  will be at war in Central America in no time at all.

And if Star Wars is any indication, we will be at war with the
evil empire in no time at all.  To paraphrase Freud, "sometimes a
movie is just a movie."

>  Peter Reiher
>  reiher@ucla-cs.arpa
>  {...ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!reiher

Remember, Peter, I'm just talking about the movie, not you.

	Carl
	..!ctvax!uokvax!lmaher