The broken oar and the gear of foreign dead men

[sovay]

So I feel like I owe writeups of several things, including Readercon and the movie I saw last night, but what you're getting right now is a list of different movies altogether. Over dinner tonight, derspatchel and I were pipe-dreaming the program for a festival of maritime film. (I don't even remember. I think we were talking about John Ford.) Inevitably, it's kind of a list of our favorites. So far we agree on—

Mutiny on the Bounty (1935), dir. Frank Lloyd

Captain Blood (1935), dir. Michael Curtiz

Captains Courageous (1937), dir. Victor Fleming¹

The Long Voyage Home (1940), dir. John Ford

The Cruel Sea (1953), dir. Charles Frend

The Caine Mutiny (1954), dir. Edward Dmytryk

Moby Dick (1956), dir. John Huston

The Secret of Roan Inish (1994), dir. John Sayles

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), dir. Gore Verbinski²

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003), dir. Peter Weir

We very regretfully did not include either 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1954) or Treasure Island (1950), although James Mason and Robert Newton are deservedly classic and inimitable in each.³ I am uncertain whether A Night to Remember (1958) counts as maritime film or just a disaster movie that occurs aboard a ship, albeit a wrenching and excellent example of the form. (You will notice Cameron's Titanic (1997) is not on this list.) I am also not sure I can count Splash (1984), formative sea-movie of mine though it is, and I know I can't count Pacific Rim (2013), although somehow it feels like one should. There are no documentaries; there should be some. Some more recent films couldn't hurt. And something non-American. Also it has not escaped my notice that this list of directors is kind of a dickfest and I cannot believe women never make movies about the sea. Tell me what we're missing!

1. If, as my husband stipulates, the audience remembers that the very last lines are terrible.

2. The first movie remains the best example of swashbuckling I have seen since Errol Flynn. I love so much about the second and third, but they are so wildly inconsistent I cannot in good conscience include them. Davy Jones and the Flying Dutchman and Calypso/Tia Dalma: fantastic. Elizabeth Swann coming into her piracy: could've used more, but that's why we have fanfic. The cannibal island and whatever the hell was going on with Singapore: naaarp.

3. Newton's Long John Silver is extremely imitable, but that is part of his glory.

Comments

[sovay]

I was going to ask whether submarine movies counted, or whether they had to stay on top of the water.

Nah, I like submarines.

I have a peculiar liking for the unfortunately-titled U571, although I recognize that it takes the work done by a lot of British people in actual history and mashes it into the story of an American submarine crew instead.

Hm. That may be the kind of historical substitution that interferes with my watching a movie, but I will keep it in mind all the same.

(Or all sail ahead. Or whatever.)

DAMN CONTINUITY FULL SAIL AHEAD.

I think if it were possible to synthesize the second and third films into one installment, or at least two tighter and more coherent installments minus a bunch of racism and unfinished plot threads, I would consider the trilogy one of the great achievements of fantasy on the screen; as it is, I really like the pieces I like, and I've been wanting to rewatch the whole thing since the beginning of this summer and probably will if I can assemble the DVDs, but I wish the scriptwriters had just put a little more thought into it before they started filming. Just a little. It wouldn't have taken much! Finishing the script before shooting is perfectly normal!

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

That may be the kind of historical substitution that interferes with my watching a movie, but I will keep it in mind all the same.

I don't think it's too egregious? It's about the efforts during WWII to acquire Enigma machines and/or code books so they could break the German cipher, and the scroll text at the end lists off something like a dozen missions that contributed to making this happen, because it isn't the kind of thing you actually do in one fell swoop. The movie is a single incident, I think largely fictionalized, that does more in one go than any of the real missions actually did -- but that's to be expected in a movie. The biggest issue is that most of the real missions were done by Brits, though I think a few were American.

I recommend it to your attention in large part because it is definitely a submarine movie, rather than a war movie that takes place on a submarine. Many of its plot elements are predicated on the fact that the characters are in a small tin can deep underwater, surrounded by people who want to make that can either explode or implode -- a task which is frighteningly easy to accomplish.

but I wish the scriptwriters had just put a little more thought into it before they started filming.

Yeah, that sums it up pretty well. #3 in particular sort of feels like a balls-to-the-wall first draft -- which is great, except that usually first drafts get revised, y'know? But on rewatching, I do appreciate the number of times they nod toward the most obvious thing to do, and then do something else. Elizabeth Swan is not Calypso. Jack Sparrow does not become the Pirate King. Nor does he become the captain of the Flying Dutchman. All of these are good things, not because they would be bad things otherwise, but because it's more fun when the narrative dodges the obvious bullet.

I deeply regret the way the fourth movie just . . . didn't work. Jack Sparrow needs a straight man to be the "protagonist" while he careens around doing his thing; he doesn't work as the sole central character. And the film was too Tim Powers to be properly Pirates of the Caribbean, but also too Pirates to be properly Tim Powers.

[sovay]

I recommend it to your attention in large part because it is definitely a submarine movie, rather than a war movie that takes place on a submarine. Many of its plot elements are predicated on the fact that the characters are in a small tin can deep underwater, surrounded by people who want to make that can either explode or implode -- a task which is frighteningly easy to accomplish.

Okay. That is valid and useful to know!

Elizabeth Swan is not Calypso. Jack Sparrow does not become the Pirate King. Nor does he become the captain of the Flying Dutchman.

Oh, yeah. I would have been surprised and disappointed in the film had any of those been the results. (I was banking on Norrington becoming the captain of the Flying Dutchman, but once the film disposed of him, Will was the only convincing alternative—and obviously going to be good at the job.) I don't actually argue with where the story ended up; I just wanted it to flail around less getting there. My initial thoughts on At World's End are here, by the way, in case I haven't inflicted them on you before. 2007, wow.

And the film was too Tim Powers to be properly Pirates of the Caribbean, but also too Pirates to be properly Tim Powers.

Despite the presence of what looked like excellent mermaids, I avoided the fourth movie like a supernally contagious plague.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I will also add, on the topic of U-571, that it is one of two movies* which spring to mind where the script makes compelling effect out of a character switching languages -- in a way that I'm not sure you can replicate in prose, because it relies on the audience perceiving the change without losing comprehension of the content. (I suppose you can do it in prose; you just need your audience to be appropriately bilingual.) It's a very minor note in the film, but it's one of the random little bits that sticks with me and makes me want to watch it again.

. . . dammit, why am I getting on a plane tomorrow? I want to watch all these movies! :-P

Your review of At World's End is splendid, as your reviews tend to be. I hadn't parsed all the mythical elements to quite the same extent, but yes: unlike most of what we get, it is a fantasy movie rather than merely some flavor of action or romance or whatever taking place in a fantastical world. That's surprisingly rare, and deeply satisfying to me even when we get a flawed version.



*The other is The Two Towers.

[sovay]

(I suppose you can do it in prose; you just need your audience to be appropriately bilingual.)

I've seen language-switching done successfully in prose; it does presume on the audience's understanding, but I think that's actually a good reason to do it.

It's a very minor note in the film, but it's one of the random little bits that sticks with me and makes me want to watch it again.

What's the corresponding moment in The Two Towers?

. . . dammit, why am I getting on a plane tomorrow? I want to watch all these movies!

I'm sorry! Bring movies to watch when you're no longer on a plane? (Where are you going?)

Your review of At World's End is splendid, as your reviews tend to be.

Thank you! Those films were a huge space in my brain and they happened at just the right time. The summers of 2006 and 2007 were full of the sea. It helped me survive them.

That's surprisingly rare, and deeply satisfying to me even when we get a flawed version.

I think it must account for some of the fandom's instant and deep and enduring love for the series. Aside from the fact that it swashbuckles gloriously, of course, and the protagonists are all interesting people, and Davy Jones' sailors were like things I had written or dreamed. And there's a Kraken.

[swan-tower.livejournal.com]

I was going to Okinawa, for a karate seminar; now I am back.

What's the corresponding moment in The Two Towers?

The scene where they're in the armory at Helm's Deep, preparing for battle, and Legolas and Aragorn shift into and then out of Sindarin. The choice of when the shifts happen carries a lot of character nuance for me.