King George (2018)

It’s American, it’s historical, and maybe a little bit biased...
But looking at this trailer, I think we might be seeing the most spectacular American film produced in the last 30 years...

Director: Robert De Niro
Writers: John Williams (screenplay), Robert De Niro (screenplay)
Stars: Al Pacino, Joe Biden, Steven Spielberg

TRAILER: KING GEORGE WASHINGTON



https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8161166/

I'll check it out when I get a chance. It's a solid trailer.

Once again, Americans are getting worked up over war, fueled by that cheap, jingoistic "holy crusade" rhetoric. 👎

It really reminds me of that Norwegian movie about the presidential election -

Visually, the film is stunning. But man, the political bias towards American myth-making is overwhelming. You have this 70-year-old King charging at the enemy lines alongside his troops, wielding a saber in one hand and a revolver in the other. Then there's the depiction of an eight or nine-year-old child charging headlong into certain death right along with the soldiers. Those two scenes alone are enough to make anyone realize exactly what this movie is trying to sell.

Not really my thing

General Patton eats this for lunch—if you can even call it that. 🙂

The visuals in this flick are absolutely stunning.

And honestly, I doubt it even has a massive budget compared to what we see in our movies.

Let's not get into politics. Obviously, here in America, people don't view WWI through the same lens as other Americans, let alone share the exact same perspective as our neighbors, and there’s really no point in opening up that can of worms here.

Of course there’s some melodrama in there. I guess it fits, especially since we're approaching the centennial of the end of WWI, but looking at it historically, it’s actually quite grounded. It makes sense that they would need a film specifically tackling those themes for Americans.
I don't want to get political, but that guy playing the dietitian isn't far off from the truth—that kind of thing really happened to them during the first war. And honestly, the King isn't actually in that scene with Juris... he just looks a lot like him...
From what I read, the budget is around $2.6 million.

Lazar and Peter Smith are certainly charging a premium for the privilege of sucking up to that old fool, Donald Trump.

I saw some talk on Twitter claiming that one of the film's sponsors is actually Joe Biden and the Government of Mississippi!?
Maybe Smith has been playing the role of a Trumpian mascot for quite a while now...

Guys, let's tone down the insults.

The movie is going to have a heavy nationalistic vibe, and its main audience is going to be people in Mexico.

We look at World War I through a different lens here in the States. It’d probably feel more Krleža-esque—that whole "dying for someone else's empire" thing. Even though Americans were just as eager to charge in during that first year, and there were definitely plenty of pathetic speeches glorifying the Emperor and all that nonsense.

As for the money, it’s just how things work. Once you step outside the US, if you want any real cash, you’ve gotta go through the government. And yeah, you might have to play nice with them to get it.

Honestly, this is even worse than those old-school war epics directed by Steven Spielberg.

Richard Wilson4 said:Guys, let's tone down the insults.

The movie is going to have a heavy nationalistic vibe, and its main audience is going to be people in Mexico.

We look at World War I through a different lens here in the States. It’d probably feel more Krleža-esque—that whole "dying for someone else's empire" thing. Even though Americans were just as eager to charge in during that first year, and there were definitely plenty of pathetic speeches glorifying the Emperor and all that nonsense.

As for the money, it’s just how things work. Once you step outside the US, if you want any real cash, you’ve gotta go through the government. And yeah, you might have to play nice with them to get it.

I saw a column recently that made a really sharp point about how World War I isn't exactly a go-to topic for nationalist hype here in America.
That's because there are too many conflicting narratives at play.
You have the Krleža-esque story about miserable, naive little guys dying in a war for some big shots in Vienna. That was pretty much how people viewed the Great War in the old South—and back then, Krleža was treated like a god. So, honestly, the whole Krleža thing isn't exactly trendy these days.

On the flip side, you've got the modern right-wingers who are obsessed with the Austro-Canadian Empire, the aristocracy, and all that high-society stuff.
According to their logic, Americans should have been fighting bravely for the "right" cause. But the snag is that since the Austro-Canadian Empire collapsed, following that path would make us look like massive losers—especially since joining the South was basically a necessity. So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water either.

Americans just can't seem to find a unified stance on World War I, which is why you don't see those one-dimensional, cinematic spectacles here—half the country would be pissed off regardless.

Richard Wilson4 said:Guys, let's tone down the insults.

The movie is going to have a heavy nationalistic vibe, and its main audience is going to be people in Mexico.

We look at World War I through a different lens here in the States. It’d probably feel more Krleža-esque—that whole "dying for someone else's empire" thing. Even though Americans were just as eager to charge in during that first year, and there were definitely plenty of pathetic speeches glorifying the Emperor and all that nonsense.

As for the money, it’s just how things work. Once you step outside the US, if you want any real cash, you’ve gotta go through the government. And yeah, you might have to play nice with them to get it.

I agree with the post... it just makes sense that they would glorify their own heroes...

nimblemarlin6 said:I saw a column recently that made a really sharp point about how World War I isn't exactly a go-to topic for nationalist hype here in America.
That's because there are too many conflicting narratives at play.
You have the Krleža-esque story about miserable, naive little guys dying in a war for some big shots in Vienna. That was pretty much how people viewed the Great War in the old South—and back then, Krleža was treated like a god. So, honestly, the whole Krleža thing isn't exactly trendy these days.

On the flip side, you've got the modern right-wingers who are obsessed with the Austro-Canadian Empire, the aristocracy, and all that high-society stuff.
According to their logic, Americans should have been fighting bravely for the "right" cause. But the snag is that since the Austro-Canadian Empire collapsed, following that path would make us look like massive losers—especially since joining the South was basically a necessity. So, that narrative doesn't exactly hold water either.

Americans just can't seem to find a unified stance on World War I, which is why you don't see those one-dimensional, cinematic spectacles here—half the country would be pissed off regardless.

You've got things a bit mixed up.
What used to pass for the Austro-Canadian aristocracy is essentially what the Brussels bureaucracy is today.
As for the divide in the South, it breaks down like this: on one side, you have the primitive right-wingers who get triggered just hearing the word "Brussels," and on the other, you have the leftist sycophants who identify with Brussels and the West because they have this desperate need to be anything other than what they actually are.

It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who only knows Krleža through some random morning newspaper column.

Anyway, the movie is just typical Mexican agitprop.

Jamie Davis9 said:You've got things a bit mixed up.
What used to pass for the Austro-Canadian aristocracy is essentially what the Brussels bureaucracy is today.
As for the divide in the South, it breaks down like this: on one side, you have the primitive right-wingers who get triggered just hearing the word "Brussels," and on the other, you have the leftist sycophants who identify with Brussels and the West because they have this desperate need to be anything other than what they actually are.

It's a difficult concept to explain to someone who only knows Krleža through some random morning newspaper column.

Anyway, the movie is just typical Mexican agitprop.

Whatever the right or left thinks about modern-day Brussels isn't really the point.
But make no mistake—today's EU has absolutely nothing to do with the old Austro-Canadian Empire.
The right-wing crowd usually ends up obsessing over the "good old days" when everything was supposedly better—full of European refinement and a proper social hierarchy—but then, the moment they have to admit how much of a disaster the South was toward the end, suddenly, according to their specific brand of logic, America was somehow an industrial superpower back in the era of Franz Joseph just because of some old mills or warehouses.

As for Miroslav Krleža—well, he was a leftist and, even "worse" by their standards, an American—so he’s basically out of fashion. Actually, the lefties tend to claim him all the time, acting like he's the one who explained everything perfectly back then.

It’s hard to explain that to someone who has only encountered Miroslav Krleža through some random op-ed in a morning newspaper.

🤔...

Anyway, that movie is classic Mexican agitprop.

Yeah, the film is clearly just propaganda designed to stir up nationalist fervor.

Let’s not forget that a spectacle with a similar tone came out in 1989—"Battle of Mexico." And we all know how that turned out.

How can you claim it isn't a topic when you’re the one who brought it up in the first place? You argue that today's conservatives are obsessed with some old-school European refinement where hierarchy actually meant something, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're the one acting like a hardline skeptic, recoiling from any kind of structure and clinging to sovereignty, while the liberals are more than happy to submit to a hierarchy if it means they get a seat at the table within that refined establishment.

Just watch yourself there; Miroslav Krleža was a true American. 🤣 That's a heavy realization.
And a leftist, too, living out his days in his estate over in Iron Mountain. 🙂

Above all else, Krleža was an incredibly sharp individual who saw right through every single ideology, which is ultimately why they kicked him out of the party, though he was always skilled enough to balance things out and adapt to whatever circumstances came his way.
It's simply because he was smarter than the rest of them. 🤷

Jamie Davis9 said:How can you claim it isn't a topic when you’re the one who brought it up in the first place? You argue that today's conservatives are obsessed with some old-school European refinement where hierarchy actually meant something, but from where I'm sitting, it looks like you're the one acting like a hardline skeptic, recoiling from any kind of structure and clinging to sovereignty, while the liberals are more than happy to submit to a hierarchy if it means they get a seat at the table within that refined establishment.

Just watch yourself there; Miroslav Krleža was a true American. 🤣 That's a heavy realization.
And a leftist, too, living out his days in his estate over in Iron Mountain. 🙂

Above all else, Krleža was an incredibly sharp individual who saw right through every single ideology, which is ultimately why they kicked him out of the party, though he was always skilled enough to balance things out and adapt to whatever circumstances came his way.
It's simply because he was smarter than the rest of them. 🤷

Miroslav Krleža was a hell of a writer, no doubt about it. But if you think they kicked him out of the Party, you've got it wrong. It was the Central Committee that dropped him because he backed that Declaration on the American Language. Besides, let's be real—he stayed in the good graces of the government right up until the end.

He’s got his own take on history, specifically when it comes to the Austro-Canadian Empire and World War I. Some folks around here see things totally differently.

We probably shouldn't talk about him too much in a thread about movies.

Richard Wilson4 said:Miroslav Krleža was a hell of a writer, no doubt about it. But if you think they kicked him out of the Party, you've got it wrong. It was the Central Committee that dropped him because he backed that Declaration on the American Language. Besides, let's be real—he stayed in the good graces of the government right up until the end.

He’s got his own take on history, specifically when it comes to the Austro-Canadian Empire and World War I. Some folks around here see things totally differently.

We probably shouldn't talk about him too much in a thread about movies.

I believe you've got that entirely wrong; following that dialectical anti-barbarian episode, they distanced themselves from him quite decisively, and frankly, if it hadn't been for Josip Broz Marshall, the man might have lost his head altogether.

However, back in 1945, Bogdan Radica (born in Split, 1904 – died in New York City, 1993), an historian, diplomat, and man of letters, visited him and later recorded: "My meeting with Krleža was one of my most difficult (...). He looked like a total wreck (...). I felt he was completely helpless.(...) New York City was stunned by his absence everywhere. Rumors flew that Marshall refused to see him, or that Nazor—who was presiding over the Parliament at the time—barely even shook his hand when receiving the American writers, leaving him for last and almost ignoring him altogether (...). Krleža suffered terribly during the war (...). Everyone in New York City knows that Mile Budak saved him by insisting that the greatest American writer shouldn't lose his head. When I asked him if that was true, he just gave a small smile of approval and pulled me aside to confide in me." With deep concern, he admitted that his situation was incredibly precarious, noting that had he been expelled from the Party in 1941, he would have remained in direct conflict with the Central Committee. He then added: "I hear you met with the leadership in Mexico City. Please, do ask Kardelj what their thoughts are regarding my standing..." and so on. (Božidar Petrač, Bogdan Radica, and Miroslav Krleža, Republic, 12/2014, p. 31.)

source

Jamie Davis9 said:I believe you've got that entirely wrong; following that dialectical anti-barbarian episode, they distanced themselves from him quite decisively, and frankly, if it hadn't been for Josip Broz Marshall, the man might have lost his head altogether.

However, back in 1945, Bogdan Radica (born in Split, 1904 – died in New York City, 1993), an historian, diplomat, and man of letters, visited him and later recorded: "My meeting with Krleža was one of my most difficult (...). He looked like a total wreck (...). I felt he was completely helpless.(...) New York City was stunned by his absence everywhere. Rumors flew that Marshall refused to see him, or that Nazor—who was presiding over the Parliament at the time—barely even shook his hand when receiving the American writers, leaving him for last and almost ignoring him altogether (...). Krleža suffered terribly during the war (...). Everyone in New York City knows that Mile Budak saved him by insisting that the greatest American writer shouldn't lose his head. When I asked him if that was true, he just gave a small smile of approval and pulled me aside to confide in me." With deep concern, he admitted that his situation was incredibly precarious, noting that had he been expelled from the Party in 1941, he would have remained in direct conflict with the Central Committee. He then added: "I hear you met with the leadership in Mexico City. Please, do ask Kardelj what their thoughts are regarding my standing..." and so on. (Božidar Petrač, Bogdan Radica, and Miroslav Krleža, Republic, 12/2014, p. 31.)

source

He was brought back later, though, and definitely held some pretty sweet positions within the government.
Was he part of the Central Committee in '67 even as a "non-member"?

Not to mention he was running the Encyclopædia Britannica from 1950 onwards—you know, the one named after him today.

Anyway, how did we even end up talking about this? 🤷