Why Pearl Harbour fails - and Michael Bay misses the mark...

Rating: 2/10 (20 June 2007)

The film is aesthetically a treat to be sure but it fails almost everywhere else. Michael Bay, Bruckheimer and Wallace thought they could get away with making a film that, quite honestly, would not be out of place had it been done in 1942 - the movie about 'Wake Island' has a tacked on romance and the movie 'Bataan' has the stereotypical interracial bunch - but nowadays moviegoers want something smarter and as true to history as possible while delivering a great story. Most people also know how to spot blatant propaganda and avoid it like the plague.
I think the romance is not a problem, neither is the plot the problem. The problem is the execution which is lazy and little more than a video game writ large. Check out the movie Dark Blue World about WW2 Czech fighter pilots for comparison. EXACT same plot line but worlds apart in treatment and respect for the Czech heroes who fought with the Free Czech airforce in the UK and came home only to be branded traitors by the new Communist regime.
Titanic had a truckload of crappy Hollywood dialogue but it made good. The reason I think is it was true to its source material. Michael Bay just tacks on the lovestory to a fictionalized story about real Pearl Harbor heroes - Taylor and Welch - and somehow sends them to participate in the Doolittle Raid (nevermind that fighter pilots don't fly bombers!) I think that yeah, expectation also has a lot to do with it. With the name Pearl Harbor you expect it to be a WAR MOVIE like Battle of Britain or A Bridge Too Far. Maybe some romantic interest but it shouldn't be the main theme - the main theme should be the WAR. For my part I was expecting a mix of John Toland and Walter Lord but I got something that's barely a cut about Ma Nouvelle France, that horrible Quebecquois movie about the fall of New France to the British which is YET ANOTHER Titanic ripoff. Sadly, too many people thought that just by tacking on a romance to a historic story and making it sappy they'd emulate the success of Titanic. No such luck.
Titanic succeeds where the wannabees fail because it:
a) appeals to a very broad spectrum of people (ie. higher ticket sales!) - the yuppies and lovers can gush over Di Caprio and Kate Winslet's Romeo-Julietesque love story, the boys can wait up for the Winslet nude drawing scene, the girls can swoon over Di Caprio, the geeks and rivet counters can errm count the rivets and enjoy the history brought to life.
b) incorporates various elements of story into the plot almost flawlessly and with respect to historical reality - history here isn't just a backdrop it ACTIVELY AFFECTS THE STORY (this is where Pearl Harbor fails dismally).
In Titanic the division between classes and decks becomes a physical divide that separates the lovers from each other and later, threatens to separate them from survival. The class restrictions provide the characters with motivations that go beyond mere mushyness - Kate's escape here is not just to be with the one who she loves but it is an escape from the restrictions of her class to be her own person and live a full life. Leo's role here as hero-saviour fits into classic mythic structure and it plays well, in spite of the corny dialogue. It becomes real to the viewer because the characters become real and the characters become real because the history, the scenario, the environment is real and true to the facts within the bounds of good drama. One loses one's self in this fiction instead of - as in Pearl Harbour's case - being reminded constantly that this is a blown up (pardon the pun) video game with a lovestory tacked on for the girl crowd.
c) Titanic also succeeds because it taps into the female audience by presenting a VERY powerful and positive female archetype. Where most movies of this type (historical action) focus on male achievements and character growth (and the female is little more than a pretty plot-point) Titanic's Rose de Witt-Bukater IS the main character (along with, essentially, the ship itself) and Jack Dawson is her mythic savior-redeemer. This is something we rarely see in movies of this type - only perhaps Gone With The Wind's Scarlett O'Hara can provide something comparable. It empowers women and gives women what they want - the inspiration to strive for their dreams and a man who will help them achieve that.
This is becoming a Titanic review more than a Pearl Harbor review but I point these out because Pearl Harbor very obviously seeks to emulate the aesthetics and scale of Titanic but gets the method to the multi-million dollar madness of Titanic completely wrong. It is a lazy film for lazy viewers who want their brains handed to them on a plate. Its beauty is ONLY skin deep and there is nothing more to be learned once the credits roll. Which is a pity when one considers that it purports to honour the heroes who died on a tragic Sunday morning in December, which led to millions more deaths and untold suffering in the Asia-Pacific region as well as the world's first atomic attack. An event like that deserves more than to be reduced to a glorified music video or video game for the attention deficient. It's just sad that most people can't see how this film pisses into the hallowed waters over the sunken hulk of the USS Arizona.