The worst film of the year, no question, maybe of the decade.
Lurid, inane, bordering on the sick, Simon West's picture
attempts to tell the story of the murder of a military woman on a
Georgia base. She is tied to the ground by tent pegs, spread-eagled,
naked, strangled, and West lovingly lingers on the image. Worse,
her physical entrapment is tied to a gang rape in similar
circumstances years prior. West cruelly enjoys that image as well.
But forget "The General's Daughter" as a pseudo
snuff film. Even if you can get by that horror, you are left with
four insurmountable handicaps.
First, the story is absurdist. When a new clue is required to
move it along, boom! - it drops out of nowhere. When the
investigators (John Travolta and Madeline Stowe) must wrangle
information from the daughter's psychiatrist, they suggest a
breach of his medical ethics that is so moronic you can't believe
it has been penned for the screen. If another clue is needed,
Travolta just sticks a gun to the head of a character and there
you have it - the beans are spilled. When Stowe confronts a
suspect in the gang rape seven years earlier, she uses the most
obvious technique in the book (the threat of DNA evidence on the
daughter's panties), he bites, and voila' - case solved. Apart
from the hackneyed interrogation technique (gasp! - they were
just-bought panties, and it was all a bluff!), the suspect
confesses that he tried to stop the rape, but was unable to do so.
Which begs the question: WHY WOULD A BLUFF AS TO HIS DNA ON
PANTIES PHASE HIM IN THE SLIGHTEST IF HE WAS NOT ONE OF THE GANG
RAPISTS? Oh well, no matter.
Second, the characterizations are abysmal. Travolta is
particularly awful, a condescending bore taken with himself, much
to the misery of the audience. Stowe is useless, and the script
tries to recreate the banter of TV's Lois and Clark, failing even
at that low bar. With the exception of an interesting weird turn
as the daughter's mentor by James Woods, the rest of the
characters are forgettably stock.
Third, the film is so ham-handed that it unintentionally
creates a sub-theme of conservative backlash against women in the
military. Somehow, and just trust me on this, the daughter's gang
rape and murder years later are tied to the introduction of women
in the miltary, a good thing, the film posits. Except, when
Travolta and Stowe question a female guard who was on post the
night the daughter was murdered, the female solider is a)
incompetent; b) blubbering like a brook; and then c) blase', as
she explains to the investigators that people on base often came
to the scene of the crime all the time "to fuck." Add
the truly bizarre behavior of the daughter (she essentially
sleeps with everyone her general father commands), the depiction
of military men as almost crazed in their dislike of women in
their ranks, the creepy mutual attraction of Woods and the
daughter (he is her superior in the chain of command), the fact
that Stowe and the daughter - both military women - look hot and
sport cherry red lipstick, and an early sexual foxtrot between
Travolta and the daughter, and Simon West soon makes the U.S.
Army look like a steamy Club Med. Maybe it is an experimental
film released by the Army - Join Up! Get Pussy!
Finally, if you don't know who the murderer is in the first 20
minutes, you were probably shocked that the boat sank in "Titanic."
Response to Review
2766. OhioSTOPAS - 12/20/99 11:12:40
AM
Niner: Good review of "The General's Daughter" in 2734.
In addition to the major implausibilities that you point out, I
recall some little asininities (dumbassininities?) as well.
For example, in the beginning of the movie when military
investigator Travolta is posing as a sergeant to investigate some
illegal gun sales (by the way, did this subplot have anything to
do with the rest of the movie?), he is living on a houseboat.
This sets up a terrific in-the-water fight with one of the bad
guys, but don't sergeants usually live on the base? And I thought
it odd that his TV got CNN, but maybe modern houseboats are wired
for cable, or have satellite dishes.
And another implausible line from the movie was when Travolta,
fondly remembering a commanding officer in Viet Nam, recalls how
the officer sought out Red Sox fan Travolta to let him know the
Sox beat the Cardinals "last night" in their World
Series game. Of course, there were no World Series night games in
the 60's.
So I found myself scratching my head over these little oddities.
Hey, maybe that was designed to make the audience overlook the
BIG whoppers . . .
2782. PincherMartin - 12/20/99 10:19:08
PM
Niner --
Third, the film is so ham-handed that it unintentionally
creates a sub-theme of conservative backlash against women in
the military. Somehow, and just trust me on this, the
daughter's gang rape and murder years later are tied to the
introduction of women in the miltary, a good thing, the film
posits.
The General's Daughter does not posit that the
introduction of women into the military is a good thing. Its very
point is that they -- even when qualified -- don't belong. The
General's Daughter is the antithesis to G.I. Jane.
The film is so shitty that the point is lost, and that may have
been the intention of the director. Such a pointedly anti-woman
film might frighten away the paying customers so instead they
milk the point out of it until it's just another crappy,
brainless thriller.
That's my guess anyway.
2784. AceofSpades - 12/20/99 11:00:51
PM
Re: The General's Daughter
"Finally, if you don't know who the murderer is in the first
20 minutes, you were probably shocked that the boat sank in
"Titanic.""
Let's just say another example of Ace's Superfluous Handsome Man
Postulate.
I'd warn you that's a Spoiler, but that would be a lie, as it
spoils absolutely nothing. The film picks the murderer out of a
hat-- the murderer's motive was only revealed when the murderer
was unmasked, and a thousand other people could have had the same
motive (in other words, none of the "detecting"-- none
of it-- led to the murderer).
Combine that with a cute but obvious way of revealing the
murderer's lack of an alibi and it pretty much wraps it up.
Let me add this:
The film was shot entirely through a yellow-filtered lens. This
is an annoying practice. I don't know why directors do it; "A
Few Good Men," "Hunt for Red October," etc., seem
capable of shooting extremely handsome footage without the need
of gimmicky lensing.
Here's an idea: Record the light that's actually present in a
scene, rather than artificially giving it a jaundicy look.
Tony Scott and John McTiernan use filtered lenses ONCE IN A WHILE.
NOT FOR THE WHOLE FUCKING MOVIE. If you cannot ween yourself off
of pretty colored lenses, follow Scott's and McTiernan's example
and use them once or twice for establishing shots.
Thus endeth the lesson.
2785. AceofSpades - 12/20/99 11:03:23
PM
Note: Tony Scott is *almost* an offender on this score because he
overuses the cheap effect more than he ought to. In fact, he's
pretty bad.
But I give him a pass for "True Romance" and "Crimson
Tide."
I don't care if he used a lot of filtered lensing for "Days
of Thunder." I don't care much about Days of Thunder at all.
2786. AceofSpades - 12/20/99 11:10:30
PM
Note 2: I don't know for sure if the General's Daughter used
yellow lenses. Perhaps they used film which didn't pick up reds
and blues and intensely as it picked up yellows.
However the "effect" was achieved, it was annoying and
did not make me think I was looking at golden-lighted Southern
bayous. It made me think I was looking at California as seen
through yellow lenses.
2789. 109109 - 12/21/99 7:14:36 AM
On the General's Daughter
Pincher
I did not read the DeMille book, and you may be correct, that it
is an anti-women-in-the-miltary tract, but the spoken, obvious
message of the filmmakers was the opposite - that women in the
military were a good thing, and the perversion/antipathy of their
male counterparts was the only negative. Indeed, "the
General" does what he does vis-a-vis his daughter, in part,
we are told, because to make a stink of it would irreparably harm
the cause of women in the military.
Regardless, the subtext, and I believe it is an awkward,
unintentional subtext, is that kangaroos in the military would be
more effective than women.
Ace
Another rule applies: if a semi-star is playing a doo doo,
nothing role, there's your bad guy. Agreed, however, on
application of your rule.
2832. PincherMartin - 12/21/99 1:04:47
PM
Niner --
Think of the story of The General's Daughter is more of a
metaphor against women in the military than an argument against
them. A military women is raped and tortured during an exercise
at West Point, in part because the men resent her presence there.
The very man who should protect her above all others -- her
father, a general -- sacrifices her for the good of the military
(and later, for the good of his own career).
What first appears to be a remarkable woman -- intelligent,
tough, disciplined -- well suited for almost any role in the
military (she can even change a tire!), later appears to be a
woman who could only effectively use two weapons against the men
-- sex and her feminine guile. The former weapon, especially,
ends up destroying morale at the base she works just prior to her
death.
The woman's presence in the military thus inflames feelings among
her male peers that she cannot protect herself against except in
such a way as to destroy the unit. The men who are most important
to her, and should protect her -- the father-figures, the
generals, really any man in charge -- have other considerations
because of the political-charged nature of the issue.
2842. 109109 - 12/21/99 1:33:39
PM
Pincher
Your recitation of the theme was decidely better than and foreign
to the actual film, but thanks.
2843. PincherMartin - 12/21/99 1:58:41
PM
Niner --
How is it foreign to the actual film?
2844. PincherMartin - 12/21/99 2:16:51
PM
Niner --
No reasonable moviegoer to The General's Daughter is going
to get the point as I've written it. It's a shitty and confusing
movie. I wouldn't have gotten it had I not read a review with
inside information on the author's viewpoint. My post on the
movie's theme was meant to weed through all of the plot points
and contradictions designed to throw the intelligent moviegoer
off the track. You should be thanking me ;-)
2875. 109109 - 12/22/99 7:01:43 PM
Pinch
2843
Because the film did not approach the theme as you explained. I
agree. The picture was confusing and disjointed, a godawful mess.
But I also sense that the screenwriters could not possibly have
endorsed a thematic rejection of women in the military. So, they
purposefully split the baby. The story suggested a problem with
women in the military (she was a woman, it was a problem), and
the flavor unknowingly reinforced the suggestion (the moronic
female post guard, the hot mama lipstick on our miltary women [the
daughter and Stowe], the wolfish, violent, cunning griminess of
"the men" who basically lined up to nail the daughter
by rape and by consensual affair).
And, to make it just as bad a picture as it could be, the
standard politically correct sops were offered (the daughter
bested all the men in her unit, and thus, she had to be gang-raped;
the moron guard's testament to ho the daughter was a friend to
other women in the military; the father's concern for the role
same).
Laughably, in the same breath that the screenwriters have a
character declare that she bested all of her male peers at "the
Point," he points out without irony that she was separated
from her unit during maneuvers - and thus, the rape was made more
easy).
