Introduction
I get especially excited when I see foreign films make it into the US "big screen." It somehow feels like rooting for the underdog. It's the contraflow of foreign films to the US (opposing the usual Hollywood flow to the rest of the world), which enriches the US cinemas with commendable films like Pan's Labyrinth (2006) and Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000).
I just looked up the definition to "contraflow" to make sure I used it properly, and found this very cool picture:
A "contraflow" lane reversal traffic to evacuate Houston from Hurricane Rita (2005). (via Wikipedia) Looks like the apocalypse dunnit?
[Warning: May Contain Spoilers.]
And so when a friend discovered South Korean hit 71: Into the Fire (2010) playing in a local movie theater, I had to watch it.
Before Watching The Movie
I was excited because the synopsis seemed so intriguing: "71 South Korean high school students (volunteers) fight in war to defend South Korea from a formidable North Korean invasion." Oh and the "true story" part made it even more appealing. I expected a wave of emotions to be felt, as well as some powerful lessons to be learned.
During the Movie
First fifteen minutes of the film: Emotions were most certainly felt and powerful music most certainly heard; alas, the tragedies of war.
Middle of the film: Powerful music heard but emotions dried out by redundant war images.
Last fifteen minutes of the film: Oh, so this is what a war porno looks like. Lovely.
After the Movie
Thoughts on 71: Into the Fire (2010)
It's obvious the director (Lee Jae-Han) of 71 wanted to convey the atrocities of war but went about it rather poorly. Showing lots and lots of guns, lots and lots of gore, and lots and lots dead bodies is all fine; I'm okay with that. I'm sure that is how real warfare looks like. Saving Private Ryan did the same thing: smoke, blood, and tears. But Private Ryan had critical somethings that 71 does not: character...and characters.
Characters that looked felt, smelt, and tasted real. Private Ryan had audiences emotionally invest in these fictional people. Suddenly those piles upon piles of dead bodies actually meant something to us. When people died in Private Ryan you felt an overpowering sense of loss and grief. You personally felt the consequences of war right down your gut because you closely followed these individuals and their story no matter how it fit in the general schema of World War II.
71 on the other hand does the exact opposite. It takes real people and reduces them to 2D cardboard figurines in an elementary play set. 71 creates a good vs. evil story with a typical wide-eyed hero on one end and a typical wizen villan (who severely resembles King Leonidas from 300 btw, fyi, tysk) on the other. 71 sets up 2D puppets that either run into gunfire or shoot at those running into gunfire (I guess the title makes sense). This small but true heroic event becomes over-bloated as the crux of the overall outcome of the war; diminishing the heroism of the actual event to a Sunday morning cartoon.
There's no backstory as to why these 71 children want to fight in the war (I guess they were just all courageous or something); the one rebellious student with an actual motive (revenge) is your usual prototype bad guy with an abnormally large heart. 71 throws aside potential content that expands on personality and depth, and instead relies on the flashy horrors of warfare to carry the weight of its eye-rolling message: "War = bad" or as one character puts it "Mama, why does such a[n awful] thing as war exist?" (or something ridiculously similar to that).
The Pessimist: Yes, I'm furious. My expectations have fallen flat on their faces and have been repeatedly run over by a tank full of bad cliches. Yes, true-story-inspired movies are all embellished to an extent. But was the Hero vs. Villan Showdown gun duel at the end of the film necessary? Or the inevitable redemption sequence of the rebellious wayward student popping back out from nowhere to save the day? Was there any originality in 71? Was there any new or thought provoking messages that 71 put out on the vast table of war flicks?
[.oN .oN .oN .oN :rewsnA]
The Optimist: If I wanted to watch a mindless war movie, I'd watch this. There are plenty of bodies shot, liters of blood spillt, and loud war cries hollered. It's perfect. And also, if I wanted to watch a burning car, I'd YouTube "burning car" and watch a car burn for hours until it slowly reduces itself into bits of ashes.
More importantly, comparing the similarities between these two madmen becomes an enjoyable activity:
Bad Guy of 71... and
King Leonidas. His muscular Grecian twin.
P.S. I was going to finish off with something witty and biting like: "I'd put 71: Into the Fire (2010) into a fire" but I'm not going to even try. It's too easy and it's not worth it. (Just kidding! It's really hard! But still not worth it!)
Snarky end comment: Watching 71: Into the Fire (2010) may be an equal experience as to viewing a full season one marathon of Joey without the commercials.
Conclusion
What is most disappointing about 71: Into the Fire (2010) is that it is a typical Hollywood action clone. What about the diversity and inventive quality of the foreign film contraflow to the US media? It is easy to stereotype all foreign film as magical masterpieces that go against the grain when in fact there are loads of unsavory flicks out there. Such as this one, which revels in mainstream American action cinema without it retaining much of an identity. Or soul.
Overall Diva Scores:
71: Into the Fire: C-
Saving Private Ryan: A-
Joey: C-
Diva Talkin',
SJ
