Alone in the dark movie trailer

Alone in the dark movie trailer

In Dark Blue World, one guy sleeps with the girl, the other guy sleeps with the girl, their friendship sketchy at best goes bad, sketchily, then the first guy inevitably sacrifices himself for alone in the dark movie trailer other: but in such a way as to remain as vague and anti-climatic as everything else. Meanwhile, the action occasionally flashes forward to the Communist prison where all these Czech pilots ended up after the war, where the friendship theme is still nominally in play, former enemies learning to love each other under harsh conditions, blah blah blah. I was unconvinced and thought the flashbacks were both ineffective and unnecessarily took screen time away from the main story. If the point was that these flyers did not get a alone in the dark movie trailer welcome after the war but, in fact, the opposite, than this tragic irony did not seem to me emphasized well enough, and certainly not in the most obvious way: by contrasting it with the homecoming of their fellow RAF pilots back on the other side of the Iron Curtain in England. Indeed, we didnt see much of those British pilots at all, as the story segregated the Czechs and contained the love triangle action between two Czech friends. And heres where I think the mistake was made, so let me make my case. With a love triangle involving friends, the obvious point of moral attack has to do with BETRAYAL. Fine, this story shows one friend feeling terribly betrayed, and the other feeling terribly guilty about it all. But theres a bigger picture here, which I felt terribly betrayed when it was ignored. The bigger picture has to do with the absurd historical irony that Czech pilots would be fighting in England on the side of England at all, considering that bigger picture. If you want to talk about BETRAYAL in this context, dont you think youd better foreground the shameful betrayal of Czechoslovakia by the British, when Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain tried to appease Hitler by abandoning the smaller nation to him in hopes of achieving for England at least Peace in our time? Yet in Dark Blue World, a film featuring members of the Czech air force who escaped from the Nazis invading their homeland and across Europe to come to England to risk their lives in the cause of the nation that betrayed them, passes over this dicey bit of backstory so quickly that if you didnt alone in the dark movie trailer know about it, it will pass right over your head into the pretty blue yonder. The betrayal of Czechoslovakia by the British is the hundred pound gorilla this film, made in Britain, all but ignores. Maybe the filmmakers didnt want to bite the hand that provided the location and all the rare, museum piece airplanes used for those cool dogfights. Obviously, were not on the same ethical scale as trading Sudetenland for peace, but at some level you have to wonder what exactly the deal was here. Alright, time to cut to the chase. I claimed to have seen something in the material that the artists missed, that is, the story that was crying out at least to me to be sculpted from this material, so Id better shut up and put up, Heres How They Should Have Done It: Instead of making both pilots Czech, the friendship should have been between a Czech pilot and an English pilot. That would have shored up the problem of contrast between their two fates in the postwar period, with the British flyer getting the girl and a heros welcome. More importantly, in this way, all the incipient bad feelings and moral judgment connected with the English betrayal of Czechoslovakia could be channeled onto the English pilot when he steals away the poor, homeless Czech pilots girl. The architypal or cliche-ridden way bring such a set up to satisfactory conclusion is to have the Czech forgive the English pilot, and to do so in the ultimate way, by laying down his life for him, even though he doesnt deserve it. Then we cut to a supporting character who goes home to prison instead of a heros welcome, skipping all the ineffective flashbacks and covering all the bases which should have been covered anyway. Im not sure this entirely dispenses with another problem of the film, which had to do with a second betrayal, that of the Czech people by their own government and citizens under Communism, which when all was said and done, wasnt much different than if theyd have stayed part of the German Reich but lets let that one go. As it is, Im embarrassed to be spending a film review essentially betraying the filmmakers by reviewing the film I wished theyd made instead of the one they did. On the other hand, I probably wouldnt have written a word about this film if I didnt have the chance to use it as a springboard for further musing on the possibilities latent in the material. Perhaps that was a bad idea. Or, perhaps talking about the film that might-have-been was actually a good idea, only Ive missed something obvious, and botched it once again. In which case, I would quickly make the case, contra Fitzgerald, that botched ideas play an important role in scouting out all the artistic dead ends that later artists are thus able to avoid, minesweeping as it were. Meanwhile, I have one last embarrassing confession to make: I just went back and looked up that essay by Scott Fitzgerald and discovered that it wasnt exactly focused the way I said and thought it was and have made use of it here. In other words, the idea of an essay on botching good ideas was latent in his material, even if Fitzgerald didnt precisely see it. What Fitzgerald should have written oh, forget it.