The Pacific, Parts 2 and 3 are very different animals. While Part 2 follows the first installment pretty closely, and deals with some very fierce jungle combat, Part 3 finds our characters on leave in Australia and it’s this action-less episode that’s garnered significant criticism around the intarwebs. Now I feel like it’s my duty—nay, obligation—to level some pretty harsh criticism of my own at those who had a problem with Part 3, but I’ll try to be nice.
Let’s start with Part 2.
The second episode in the Speilberg/Hanks mini-series, The Pacific, is very much what the fight in the Pacific was all about. We bear witness to some pretty intense fight scenes in which the American Marines and Army companies are out-numbered significantly by their Japanese enemies, yet still slog through. What I really loved about Episode 2 was the uncompromising realism. I’m big on this, as a History Major. The battle scenes, which took place primarily at night, were realistic. That’s when the battles were fought. What’s more, our directing team has seen fit to make it really hard to see anything. It’s smart. It’s night, and if the soldiers can’t see, then why should the viewers be able to? As a result, the night battles scenes are dark, very dark, but if not our eyes, then our ears. The sound design in Episode 2 is simply phenomenal. Listening to this episode in anything remotely resembling surround sound gives you an incredible sound picture of the action going on in that dark jungle. It’s brilliant.
Now, for Part 3.
This is episode was met which much criticism but I don’t think it’s warranted. A comparison needs to be made here. In Band of Brothers, Spielberg and Hanks’ first venture, they gave the first two episodes over to non-combat character development. This is necessary. In any good movie or mini-series or piece of literature you need time to get to know the characters. The Pacific sets us off in a pretty jarring way: before we even know anything about the characters, or even who the main characters are, we’re in the middle of the battle. Parts 1 and 2 are all about fighting, combat, and survival. I get the sense that we were meant to feel like we were surviving before we really knew who we were. Do you follow?
So Episode 3, our characters’ leave in Australia, is a necessary piece of character development. Here we get to know the characters, their personalities, their hopes and dreams and ambitions and we get to see them as real people. Sure, it made the show’s fan base of post-adolescent XBox owners twiddle their thumbs in boredom, but if we don’t establish who our main characters are, and what’s most important to them, all we’re doing is watching a bunch of people fight. Perhaps that is why several reviews I read said, “I wish they’d just get back to the action!” Ho hum.
Personally, I enjoyed the way that Spielberg and Hanks decided to introduce their cast of characters. It wasn’t traditional. It was interesting and, obviously, it was pretty bold if it sends half their fan club into fits. Although if this week’s episode, which aired last night and I haven’t seen, doesn’t get us back into the action I think I’m going to faint. Just kidding.
How do you feel about the show overall so far? To me it still doesn’t feel as well done as Band of Brothers. Probably due to the way it just threw us into the action. This part 3 did help develop the characters more, but apart from a couple main characters, I still don’t feel like I know the overall cast all too well.
The large number of times I’ve seen Band of Brothers, probably contributes to this as well. I have a feeling I’ll enjoy The Pacific much more the second time through when I’m familiar with the characters.
I agree with you, Jason.
I haven’t seen Part 4 yet, but so far the series feels very different than Band of Brothers. In BoB you had a pretty big cast of characters that you traveled with and got to now, right from Basic. In The Pacific, it feels like there are way fewer main characters, and even with Part 3, we still don’t really know them THAT well. I don’t feel like there’s a bond there yet, between the viewer and the characters, or even between the characters themselves.
Of course, what you’re saying is probably true. I’ve seen BoB so many times as well, you get the know the characters so well. My friend Steve said that the one thing he misses is a moral father figure like Winters, who gave the show some direction. We don’t have that yet with The Pacific, and I think it’s lacking for sure.
Dude, I totally agree with you! I was ticked that people weren’t down with episode 3; as I also remembered the character development that went into Band of Brothers — an effort which made it possible for the viewer to understand the characters. In Band of Brothers, not only did we see the early episodes without bloodshed, but the final two (“Why We Fight” and “Points”) were without combat as well… nobody complained about those.
When the Pacific launched, I remember watching the first episode and thinking to myself, I have no idea who these people are, or who are important characters. I didn’t feel like any character had yet been distinguished as the “Cpt. Winters” of the Pacific. There were some obvious faces that were set apart to be recognized, but the epic battle scenes don’t allow for much connection with the character.
I felt like Hanks and Spielberg did this for a reason: namely, to exemplify the haste and insanity which marked the beginning of the war in the Pacific. When the USA entered the war, they were violently thrust into it; a great potion of their naval fleet had been destroyed at Pearl Harbor, and their response was swift and arguably not as well planned as it should have been.
I believe we, as viewers, were meant to feel that initial confusion and despair. However, I am thankful that the shows producers didn’t neglect the character development for this show!
Right on, Brent. Couldn’t agree more.