Movie Club for June 30th - The Dirty Dozen

Most of the civilians that you speak of are Nazi backers, Ambassadors, Officers, etc. Some are civilians, but not most of them. Anyway, throghout the movie the, some of the dozen, are shown to be good men that made dumb mistakes. Many movies have us cheering for those anti-heroes, why would this one be any different? Snake Plisken is a perfect example.

I think you're throwing the word "their" around to freely. Franco and Telly's characters are the only ones that are proven to be bad to the core, and it's shown that even Franco has a couple of redeeming traits. Like I said, this wasn't a party for people who are innocent. This is a Nazi party, with sympathizers throghout. It's okay to feel bad for the girl though. Telly was pretty greasy wasn't he? I remember as a kid, I was always grossed out by that part, because you can hear a 'pop' when the dagger pierces her belly.

You're wrong about that. Most Nazi's were hand picked due to what they believed in. The regular German soldier, however...

Wait a minute. We're supposed to feel sorry for the Germans because they were just following orders...but not feel sorry for the dozen, even though they were following orders, and many were saving their own lives because if they didn't do the mission, they were facing hanging or life sentences?

That doesn't make any sense at all.

You're lumping all these men into one catagory, and it's unfair to the character's. Posey accidentaly killed a man in a bar fight. He's not a bad man, isn't blood thirsty. Neither is Jefferson, or half the other guys. Franco and Maggot are the real baddies, not the rest. They don't want to go kill their mother's and some aren't even in for murder. It seems like everybody has a gripe about what they did. It wasn't there choice! High ranking American officials FORCED them to do it. Do it or die.

Thank goodness you weren't in charge when the world had to deal with these people. There have been party's around the world with the same power over its people since then, and many are still around today. Society showing an empathetic view on the people instead of the group, won't change the fact that most countrie's could give a rat's ass unless it directly involves them. I haven't seen a Congo thread full of outrage in this forum yet.

Jeez man, lighten up. It can be arguable that ALL war movies glorify the actions. And killing Officers as well as civilians in a war, is not murder. It's war, Kong. **** happens, it sucks. Too friggin' bad. There were a whole hell of a lot of V.I.P.'s at that party. I guess the Americans could have picked them off one by one, if they ever could get close again. Or they could have sent in commando teams, and lost American's. Or they could get 'em all in one fell swoop. It's war. One fell swoop.

Sorry if my responses were short, nothing against any of you...surely.

__________________
"Today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids."

Go Lord

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Hey, as long as we got a few Viet Cong in the My Lai Massacre who cares, right?

The movie sucked at this part too. They had to make them likable for the comedy to work, but at the same time they are all stiff-sentenced, and that doctor claimed they were all bad.

Kong was referring to soldiers, and the average German people who supported the Nazis, and turned they heads at the wrongs. Sorry about that.

Bull****. Kong is sorry to be rude here, but he is pissed and insulted so you'll have to excuse him. People turning their heads, bending their "iron wrought convictions", and rationalizing bad things as being for a better good has helped lead to countless atrocities. The thought that the means, no matter how evil, justifies the end is just silly. There is no true end to justify, because time just keeps on ticking away. When we stop treating each action as an end unto itself we invite the justifacation of bad actions. So, should we have fought the Nazis? Yes! Should we have made an effort to prevent killing civilians? Yes!

Kong agrees that we had to "deal with these people", but disagrees that we should allow ourselves to be debased in doing so.
Hell, we should have just A-Bombed all of Europe in that case. One fell swoop!

__________________
Kong's Reviews:
Stuck On You
Bad Santa

Although this convention was not in place when the fictional events of The Dirty Dozen took place, it is a belief that Kong maintains. The film, however, doesn't appear to feel the same way, and that is the reason for Kong's dislike. You may disagree with this article of the Geneva Conventions, and you may disagree with Kong, but hopefully you all can at least understand where Kong is coming from.

I don't feel sorry for the Germans...I do feel sorry for the dozen...I understand everyone was following orders. I don't want to argue the legalities of war, or bring up "they should've done this instead" scenerios anymore. The problem I had with the ending, like Kong said, was that it didn't seem to fit the comedy-ensemble-buddy theme of the rest of the film. But I was disliking this film BEFORE the climax. I don't think I would have liked it any better had the climax played out in a way that seemed more honorable and heroic.

I'm not sure if Aldrich was trying to get a reaction like Kong's and mine from the audience, or if he was trying to get a reaction like LordSlaytan, Nebbit, and Beale the Rippe's. George Pelecanos, a crime/noir novelist and producer, said this about the film:

The Dirty Dozen (1967) was an ode to anti-authoritarianism, and radically challenged the audience to reexamine its notions of heroism and war; the film's unsettling climax had its protagonists pouring gasoline and grenades over German officers and their women.

He didn't expand on this, but by "challenging the audience to reexamine it's notions of heroism and war," is Aldrich TRYING to get Kong's and my reaction? Is Marvin acting in an anti-authoritarian manner by carrying out the mission in this way? Is he defying the military brass by doing it in a way that they wouldn't have approved?

When Marvin asked for one of the dozen to get the gasoline, did anyone notice Ralph Meeker's reaction? Was this the reaction Aldrich was hoping the audience would consider?

Here is also something from Hollywood.com:

"The Dirty Dozen" (1967) reiterated Aldrich's contemptuous view for a military machine which dehumanized its subjects in order to make them capable of killing. The violent "heroics" of Robert Jefferson (Jim Brown)--dropping grenades that engulf trapped German officers in flames--illustrated how vicious men become under adversity.

This film was released while the U.S. was engaged in the Vietnam War. Was Aldrich trying to send an anti-war message? Deckard mentioned a "cynical' look at the dozen, and Kong responded with this:

Kong actually did consider an interpretation that the film was a highly cynical look at the "dozen", and an attack on conniving military brass, but that view simply doesn't work for Kong. If Aldrich Was trying to send that message, then he was trying to walk a thin line and failed doing so, IKO.

I agree. If this were Aldrich's intent, he failed based on the reactions of all of us involved in this discussion.

__________________
NEW (as of 1/24/05): Quick Reviews #10

That's a slight exaggeration, Kong.

1940's psychology? Please.

Sorry if you felt insulted, Kong. You know I like and respect your opinion. What I meant when I said your, "Ahh, the old, 'In order to save the world from murderous madmen we'll become murderous madmen ourselves!' argument. It's that type of rationalizing that helped lead to Nazism and the holocaust." didn't make any sense was, that rational had nothing to do with Hitler and the Third reich's rise to power. That's all. No disrespect to your intelligence. Honest.

Another exaggeration. Listen, I'm not a ruthless wannabe murderer, or anything, but I do realize that within war things cannot always be fair, pretty, or even moral. And for anyone to think that it is, or that it even can be, is either niave or ignorant. No offense man. 'Tis only my opinion.


I don't have a problem with you guys disliking this movie, I really don't. But the reasons you were originaly giving were moral issues, and not always cinematic. Remember also, that the people in this film are supposed to have grown up in the 20's and 30's, they're not going to have the same enlightenment of the mellinium generation. I really liked Mark's response, I could relate well to the way he said it.

Peace Kong.

The point is, where do you draw the line? How many non-combatants are you allowed to kill with full awareness in the pursuit of victory? 10? 100? 1000? In all likelyhood, we probably draw different lines. Kong expects unfair and immoral things to occur during war, but doesn't feel that they should be excused. As soon as we start bending our principles, we start warping the fabric of our humanity.

You say, "But the reasons you were originaly giving were moral issues, and not always cinematic." Kong understands what you are saying, but he feels that disliking a film on philosophical differences is as justified as disliking one of cinematic flaws. Kong felt that it glorified something that was wrong, Kong can't help that his reaction to this was a negative one and he'd be lying to you if he ignored it. On the same token Kong has an intense dislike for many of the reality TV shows that have become so popular, and it is a moral one as well. Kong hates to see shows that attempt to exploit people and there sufferring in the name of entertainment (Cheaters is a good example), or shows that attempt to draw out the worst in people.