Empire of the Sun

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 2:54pm

I know, it was from 1987 but I just watched it. OMG doesn't describe this masterpiece. But my main question is this-does anyone know at the time whether a big fuss was made over Christian Bale? I mean, he WAS the film. It was his first. Even to this day, I never hear mention of him from this film. He ought to be praised to the heavens for his talent. HIS FIRST FILM. SERIOUSLY?

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 3:11pm

It was Christian Bale's very first feature film. His very first film was the 1986 television movie, "Anastasia: The Mystery of Anna" starring Amy Irving. Amy Irving was married to Steven Spielberg at the time and personally recommended Bale to him for "Empire of the Sun" and the rest, shall we say, is history.

Updated On: 1/5/14 at 03:11 PM

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 3:24pm

oh, ok, because in the credits at the end of the film, they said "and introducing Christain Bale, etc."

I'm a big fan of Bale, but I had no idea of his film history. wow. I can't get over him in Empire.

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 3:35pm

I haven't seen it in years. I have to re-visit it but I do remember it being a film that impacted me and I remember liking it very much.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 3:44pm

I was transfixed. Once I got into it, I didn't dare leave the couch. didn't shower, eat, nothing, until it was over.

[romantico]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 6:50pm

One of my favorite movies. I am so surprised at how many people I mention this film to have never seen or heard of it. IMO,this is one of Spielberg's very best. Been years since I've seen it but I though Ben Stiller was in this movie as well. I could be wrong.Maybe someone who looked like him. I also remember John Williams score in this being just breathtaking!

[bobs3]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 6:53pm

Many critics at the time (while praising the film -- at least the first 40 minutes) thought Christian Bale was too young to have given such a good performance and suggested he may have had intense coaching from Spielberg. I think Mr. Bale has since proved to those critics that he has natural talent.



Updated On: 1/5/14 at 06:53 PM

[mikey2573]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 7:12pm

I have always thought of that film as THE film that epitomized Spielberg the young filmmaker because of its overkill. It seems to be a movie made with the "Sledgehammer" approach to filmmaking. Does EVERY point a movie is making have to be telegraphed? Does every scene have to have its HUGE "MOMENT!!!" ? I recall the Japanese pilot getting into his plane, with sparks flying all around him, Williams' score blaring louder and louder, and Bale standing at attention. Or the scene where Bale is trying to revive the same pilot later in the film and he keeps pounding and pounding on the pilot's chest, while (again) Williams' score blares louder and louder, and the sunlight flickering on and off as Bale moves back and forth. And, just to HAMMER whatever point Spielberg was trying to make, the shot goes on and on and on and on and on and the music gets louder and louder and louder, and the sun is there then gone, there then gone there then gone.... Or when Bale yells "BASTARD!" and jumps on a soldier in anger, only instead of just jumping, he flies about 40 feet in the air, ala Mary Martin in PETER PAN. The whole move is completely over the top. BUT, through it all, through Spielberg's overkill, WIlliam's blaring score, the one thing that stands out in the film is Bale's mind-blowing performance; possibly the greatest performance by a youngster ever preserved on celluloid. How Bale did not win an Oscar for that performance (he wasn't even nominated) is positively stupefying.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 7:26pm

Romantico, I agree this has now become one of my favorite films. Besides the absolutely incredible acting by Bale, the art direction, scenic design. score by John Williams, and of course the most brilliant direction around. I don't think Stiller was in it, I didn't see his name.

Bobs, whether or not Speilberg coached Bale - I mean, isn't that what directors do?? yes, it is. And what a great director to get that performance out of that child!

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 7:32pm

Mikey, what a shame you weren't able to direct that film instead of Speilberg. Oh well….

FYI, a special award was created just to honor Bale's performance. It was titled best performance on screen by a juvenile actor, or something to that effect.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 7:52pm

Romantico- Ben Stiller WAS in the film. He played Dainty.

[romantico]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 8:32pm

So that WAS him? Wow! He must have been pretty young. I dd not think Stiller was that much older than Bale.

I always loved this movie poster.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 8:38pm

aw, I just see a blue question mark

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 1/5/14 at 11:51pm

One of my favorite movies.

[best12bars]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 7:25am

I saw this movie when it was first released, and I haven't seen it since.

I thought the first part of it was a masterpiece. A perfect film. Then when the boy got to the camp, the entire movie ground to a halt for me. Suddenly, the characters became caricatures, the story stopped, and it seemed like artificial Spielberg storytelling at its worst, with the boy (E.T.) trying to get home in this strange world. This is back when Spielberg was making and remaking the same story with different characters and settings ... but with the same director's eye.

To me, it felt very formulaic, and what had started out to be an epic masterpiece suddenly turned into an ordinary paint-by-numbers film. It was a huge disappointment, because the potential for greatness was there.

... But as I say, I haven't seen it since. I haven't felt the desire to revisit it. Maybe I'll give it a whirl again and see if I still feel the same way.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 9:32am

I too saw the film when it was released, and left the theater feeling very ambivalent about it, it felt like Spielberg was really trying to stretch himself, to do something other than the entertaining fluff he'd been known for, and well yeah, okay, points for the attempt but something was missing and I couldn't put my finger on it. Then I went home and read J.G. Ballard's novel, which I'd had for some time and been unable to finish, and found to my dismay that Spielberg had completely sanitized it in the transition to the screen. Ballard's novel is a nightmare of brutality and horror, death and destruction, and Little Stevie turns it into a movie about a boy who wants his Mommy. I've been unable to take him seriously as a filmmaker ever since.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 10:33am

I haven't expounded enough on the art direction and cinematography. This film was absolutely stunning. I'm primarily visually oriented so I was mesmerized by the beauty of the film. There were so many aspects of this movie which exceeded in quality that I do call it a masterpiece. Just saw it yesterday and looking forward to watching it again soon.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:06am

"Ballard's novel is a nightmare of brutality and horror, death and destruction, and Little Stevie turns it into a movie about a boy who wants his Mommy. I've been unable to take him seriously as a filmmaker ever since."
I disagree. While I think the film is beautifully shot I do not think it completely sanitizes the horrors of war. To me it's about the horrors of war as seen through the eyes of a child. Not a surprising theme coming from Speilberg during that time in his career.
It's definitely not just a movie about a boy who wants his mommy. There a much bigger themes to be found in the film than that. If anything it's more about a boy learning to survive without his parents. By the time he gets to the prison camp Jaime all but forgets about his parents and the film becomes more about Jaime's relationship with Basie.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:35am

Boy who wants his mommy? So wrong. OMG, how about the fact that this boy of privilege, who never had to do anything for himself, becomes an entrepreneur on the battleground, running (literally) a thriving business with nothing but his strong brain power. How about a little boy who must survive without food nor water for long periods of time, yet still has the will and energy to help others. What about the boy who is heralded as the leader of an entire group of adult prisoners of war? the story was about the boy's struggle to survive during wartime, on his own. He all but forgot about his parents at times.

Boy who wants his mommy? oy.

Updated On: 1/6/14 at 11:35 AM

[Borstalboy]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:40am

Do read the book, you guys. It's a completely different animal, like...well, like THE COLOR PURPLE.

I think the film has it's incredible strengths, Bale being one of them, but is unbalanced in tone and isn't nearly as good as it could have been.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 11:56am

I've always enjoyed the film and have always been impressed by the work Mr. Bale did in this piece.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 12:10pm

Yeah, I may have oversimplified Spielberg's dumbing down of the story, but I stand by the idea that his film is itself a grotesque oversimplification of Ballard's novel. For me, this is most tellingly shown in the differences between the handlings of the scene in the arena, when Jim sees the flash of what he can't possibly know is the atomic bomb at Hiroshima.

SPOILERS -- Beware mateys if ye care about that sort o'thing!!

In Spielberg's weepfest, Jim takes the flash of light as the soul of Mrs. Victor going to heaven. In Ballard's deeply disturbing novel, Jim sees it as a vision of his own soul going to heaven -- Jim is metaphorically dead, spiritually and emotionally so, and the rest of the novel details his staggerings around a deserted and desolate landscape filled with rotting corpses and more than vaguely threatening useless inanimate objects. Jim's reunion with his parents is not presented in the novel -- there's a little post-reunion coda where Jim realizes that, for all their fondness for him, he doesn't know those people any more, and vice versa they've been through their own war. Far more compelling, to me at least, than the tear-jerking reunion and embrace in the Kiddie Camp, where Mommy picks her son out of the crowd.

Well, there you go. A poignant movie, made from a novel that resolutely avoids all poignancy. In that time-honored Spielberg fashion.

As I wrote, I didn't detest the movie until after I read the book, which seemed so much richer and more interesting than what Spielberg provided. This was when Spielberg seemed to be working very very hard to break away from his image as purveyor of mindless thrills and tears, and he only wound up confirming that image, in my eyes at least.

Check out the book. Ballard's one hell of an interesting writer.

Updated On: 1/6/14 at 12:10 PM

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 1:06pm

I did read the book. I agree it's darker in tone but I think the film is a success on it's own.
And I think the scene at the end, where Jim doesn't even recognize his own mother, is the most heartbreaking scene in the entire movie.

[Jane2]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 1:29pm

You're so full of hate for this film, roscoe.

" Far more compelling, to me at least, than the tear-jerking reunion and embrace in the Kiddie Camp, where Mommy picks her son out of the crowd. "

Mama and Dada hardly recognized their son. In fact, Dada walked right past him the first time. their eventual reunion was more like you described from the book. they stared at each other for a long time. there was no crying. They finally hugged. hardly the tear jerker that you describ
And you know what? What's wrong with a tear jerker. What do you expect in such a situation. My god you are full of hate for a piece of art.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 1/6/14 at 1:41pm

Lighten up, Jane.

In the film, Daddy does walk right by his little boy, but Mommy recognizes him. There's the little bit where he touches her face, as if he's slowly recognizing her, then there's the big embrace, with the closeup of his eyes slowly closing in Oedipal Mommy Reunion Delight. But you're quite wrong -- there's no description of the reunion in the novel at all, so it isn't like what happens in the novel. There are no two ways about it. Ballard doesn't depict the reunion of Jim and his parents at all.

What's wrong with a tear jerker? Nothing in particular. I'm good with tearjerkers. But turning a relentlessly unsentimental novel into a tear jerker, as Spielberg does here, is pretty cheap, I think, and all too indicative of where his career eventually wound up heading -- emotional button-pushing at all costs. Looks like you disagree. It does happen round here.