Re: The Korean War in Cinema

["Patricia Winston \(Trish\)" <patricia_winston@hotmail.com>]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Janet Valentine" <valent03@bellsouth.net>
To: <KOREAN-WAR-L@raven.cc.ku.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2001 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: The Korean War in Cinema


> Seems to me that Marc and Trish are saying essentially the same thing -
> Hollywood couldn't make any money on Korean War films then or now,
> because no one was/is particularly interested in seeing them.  Korea
> doesn't have the place in the American popular memory that the "Good
> War", or Vietnam, or the Civil War, or...... has, so moviemakers won't
> invest in them.  In fact, I doubt that scripts dealing with a Korean War
> theme have ever been in abundance.
>
> Janet Valentine
>
> "Patricia Winston (Trish)" wrote:
> >
> > Hollywood is a business. WWII movies were still tried and true
moneymakers.
> > I think it was a case of "if it ain't broke" more than negligence.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Trish
> >
>
Thanks Janet and I agree that Marc and I are saying essentially the same
thing.  I came in a little late and reacted to a generalization.  It's a
habit.

I think too, that one has to keep in mind that Hollywood doesn't always
write movies directly about a subject.  My favorite example is Kenneth
Brannaugh's Henry V.  It's an anti-war film; Olivier's was pure WWII
propaganda.  It doesn't pay to take film subjects literally. Otherwise
you're apt to believe The Crucible was about witchcraft.

Trish