Shows you how NOT TO

Rating: 4/10 (19 October 2009)

I just finished reading the reviews (or user comments) about Is Paris Burning? I was struck by similarities between this film and that. Both are lavish productions shot on location with huge all star casts. Both have beautiful cinematography and rousing scores. Both are very long films. Both are problematic films that do not quite fit the mold.
I saw this turkey in one of the big old palace theaters in Montreal on the day it was released. I managed (somehow) to sit through its three hour running time. The three things that raised my ire were: First the unabashed rah-rah patriotism. It makes me sick. It brings up all my worst American bashing instincts. I remember thinking at the time, here is a people who are priming themselves for another war.
The long theatrical speeches. This has been discussed at length by others.
BUT WORSE were the pointless battle scenes. The heart of any war film are the battle scenes. All the great war films have some kind of aesthetic point of view. What made the Peter Jackson Lord Of The Rings movies so effective were that you are there with the characters on the battlefield. Scared. Cold. Sad. Blood mad. No matter what the emotion, you are there with the protagonists, feeling it.
I began by mentioning Is Paris Burning? As disjointed as that film was, Rene Clement was smart enough to make each little vignette in his film about something. About crossing streets under sniper fire to get to a building. About an exchange of fire between a Sherman tank and a more heavily armed Panzer. About a man returning home after two years and rolling past his house without stopping.
In Gettysburg the battle scenes are about re-creators running across fields. Thousands of them. With the camera placed in just the most boring spot.